Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Leith Harbour and Docks," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

MERCHANTS HOUSE OF GLASGOW (CREMATORIUM) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Merchants House of Glasgow (Crematorium)," presented by Mr. McNeil; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

National Service Men (Malaya)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men have been sent to Malaya; what is the average number of months they have served before being sent out; and if he proposes to continue to send men to do their National Service in Malaya.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): Of the National Service men called up under the National Service Acts, 1948, some 4,500 were sent to Malaya during the period 1st January, 1949, to 31st May, 1950. Since May, 1949, it has been the rule that National Service men must serve for 4½ months before being

sent to Malaya. The average period is slightly higher. As I have previously stated, National Service men must continue to be sent abroad to the extent that our military commitments render this necessary.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are some boys of 18 years of age who have just finished training for three months and who are now on leave before proceeding to Malaya and Hong Kong? Is he further aware of the undertaking, which was given during the passing of the National Service Act through this House, that no boy under 19 years of age would be sent abroad, and that during even the dark days of the war no boys under 19 were sent?

Mr. Strachey: I am not aware that they are being sent to Malaya after training of three months, for the rule is four and a half months before they are sent out. If my hon. Friend has any case in mind where this rule is not being followed I should like to hear of it.

Mr. Blackburn: Is it not being shown in Korea that the use of conscript troops at that stage of a war is not the best use that can be made of them? Does not my right hon. Friend think there should be a special volunteer force for Malaya of people with experience of Commando and similar operations in the last war, properly trained, which would be, in my view, the most effective method of dealing with the Malayan situation?

Mr. Strachey: That is a much wider question, but I do not take the view that National Service men have proved unsuitable in Malaya. From such personal observations as I could make there, I took a very different view from that.

1st Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War what are his future plans for the movements of the 1st Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment.

Mr. Strachey: It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that boys under 19 who have been transferred recently from the North Staffordshire Regiment to


the Worcesters and the South Staffordshire Regiment, will not be sent abroad unless they have at least the average training which they receive in other regiments?

Mr. Strachey: As I have already said, the rule is that they must not be sent to Malaya until they have four and a half months' training. If there is any question of an infraction of that rule I should naturally like to have particulars.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can the Secretary of State inform the House when the change was brought about? During the passage of the National Service Act an undertaking was given, which. was carried out right throughout the war, under which no boy under 19 years of age would be sent abroad. Can he say when that was changed?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down a Question on that point, which is a different one.

Courts Martial (Notices)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War why, in accordance with Army Council Instructions, a notice was not displayed at the Chelsea Barracks, where it could be seen by the public, giving details of a court martial held there on 10th July.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War when, and how, instructions were issued requiring notices of forthcoming courts martial to be publicly displayed at or near the headquarters at which they are convened.

Mr. Strachey: Instructions regarding the display of notices of courts martial were issued by signal to all Commands on 23rd June, 1950. An Army Council letter was despatched the same day. The instruction provided for the new procedure to come into force not later than mid-July, and the national and provincial Press were notified on 29th June that it might be mid-July before it was fully implemented. The new arrangements are now in force.

Troops, Smithfield (Cost)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the daily cost to public funds of the use of Army personnel at Smithfield market; and what has been the total cost of such assistance at Smithfield since the end of the war.

Mr. Strachey: None, Sir. Appropriate charges, sufficient to cover expenditure, are recovered from the employers.

Major Lloyd: is it not gravely inconsistent that the cost of building a Bailey bridge over the Thames in connection with the Festival of Britain should not he charged, as the right hon. Gentleman said these particular charges are, and why should this inconsistency occur? Why not charge the unions or those responsible for ill-discipline, with this cost?

Anti-Aircraft Developments

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent Anti-Aircraft Command is prepared to meet the latest developments in aircraft and self-propelled projectiles.

Mr. Strachey: The development of anti-aircraft weapons and associated techniques is being urgently pursued. We cannot, of course, give this particular need exclusive priority over equally important defence needs.

Mr. Watkinson: Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that at least immediate short-term measures will be given top priority to bring A.A. Command into some state of readiness, and will he also give an assurance that full account will be taken of the worst that any aggressor can bring against us in, say, the next six or 12 months?

Mr. Strachey: I should be very loth to pick out any particular defence needed and give that a top or overriding priority over others, but no one is disputing for a moment the very great importance of this matter.

Mr. Snow: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind my own view that there should be the very highest standard of instruction in these new techniques, and that we will not be subjected to the same bad instruction that many of us had in 1939?

Mr. J. N. Browne: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that L.Z. and Mark VI balloons will fulfil an irreplaceable function in the defence of strategic points, and shipping, and that there is considerable apprehension regarding the state of preparedness of this form of defence?

Mr. Strachey: I do not know whether we ought to discuss the technique of A.A. defence in Question and answer, but I can assure the House that I and my military advisers take this matter very seriously indeed.

B.C.A. Pamphlet

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Bureau of Current Affairs pamphlet entitled "Western Germany Today," written by Mr. Basil Davidson, has been examined by his Department, with a view to its use in the Army for educational purposes; and with what result.

Mr. Strachey: The regular purchase, on behalf of the Army, of Bureau of Current Affairs publications ceased on 31st December, 1949. From that date the War Department has bought only those pamphlets or map reviews that it desires. The pamphlet, "Western Germany Today," has not been examined by the Department, and I am informed that there is no present requirement for another pamphlet on this subject.

Major Beamish: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that this pamphlet will not be used in any circumstances at all, in view of its extremely partisan nature?

Mr. Strachey: As neither I nor my Department have examined it, I cannot give an assurance about it, but I am told that such a pamphlet is not at the moment required in any case.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Did the right hon. Gentleman study the public correspondence in which this Bureau took part earlier this year, and observe that the director saw no reason either for regret or apology when the Bureau published misstatements of fact?

Stores (Control)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War what action, arising from disclosure of misconduct in his printing and photographic department, he has taken to prevent theft or irregular disposal of stores.

Mr. Strachey: Fresh instructions have been issued for the control of stores held on the premises and for their issue for particular jobs. Inspections by audit

staff, not associated with the establishment, will be carried out from time to time and without warning.

Class Z Reserve

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he has made to check the addresses, present medical categories and present occupations of men on the Class Z reserve.

Mr. Strachey: The checking of the addresses and present occupations of men on the Class Z Reserve has been proceeding for some time. It is not intended to carry out a medical inspection before recall.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of how far this checking has got? Surely the checking of addresses and occupations is incomplete from his point of view unless it also includes some check on medical categories.

Mr. Strachey: The checking of addresses has gone very far, and the checking of present occupations has not gone so far. The addresses have been done first, but it is not intended, even when these checks are complete, to examine medically before calling up. The checking of these addresses does, of course, make the process of calling up smoother and easier.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman says that this has gone very far, but how far has it gone in percentages, and. when will it be complete in view of the great urgency of this matter?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot answer that without notice.

Commander Noble: Would the Secretary of State consider issuing some sort of statement explaining how, if an emergency arose, this reserve would be called up and what particular section would be called up first?

Mr. Strachey: I would have to consult with the Ministry of Labour on that point.

Brigadier Head: Does the Secretary of State think it possible to have a really full re-registration without some appeal going out from the Service authorities, asking men who have changed their addresses to re-register?

Mr. Strachey: There is no reason to suppose that the present checking arrangements are not working well.

Tanks, Breconshire

Mr. Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the extensive damage likely to ensue from the passage of exceptionally heavy tanks over roads and weak bridges in Breconshire; and what compensation will be made to the county council if this practice must be continued.

Mr. Strachey: Normally, tracked vehicles are moved only on routes previously arranged with the Ministry of Transport and the local authorities. I understand that there were recently two incidents in Breconshire where tracked vehicles used routes for which such arrangements had not been made and that some damage was done to the roads. Steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence. Any damage caused by the movement of tracked vehicles is paid for b3, the War Department.

Appeals (Army Council Procedure)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War the procedure by which the Army Council come to decisions on appeals submitted to them for arbitration.

Mr. Strachey: Such appeals, together with a statement of the case, are considered by at least three members of the Army Council.

Brigadier Clarke: Is the Secretary of State in a position to overrule an otherwise unanimous decision of the Army Council?

Mr. Strachey: I should have to have notice of that question, although no such occurrence has taken place in the case which I think the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Secretary of State has one vote the same as everyone else on the Army Council?

Mr. Strachey: I think it would be inappropriate to go into the procedure of the Army Council by question and answer. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to go into the procedure, he had better put down a Question.

Major Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he has not exercised his power to overrule a majority decision of the Army Council in any personal case since he has held his office?

Mr. Strachey: I would not attempt to give such an assurance on the Floor of the House, but in any case, the case which is being raised by the hon. and gallant Member who put down this Question did not arise during my period of office.

Good Conduct Medal

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for War why the Good Conduct Medal awarded to soldiers only brings a bounty of £5, whereas sailors get £20 for the same award.

Mr. Strachey: The rewards attaching to medals in the Army and Royal Navy differ in various respects, and the advantages are not all on one side. These differences are traditional, and it has never been considered that the arrangements in the two Services need be identical.

Brigadier Clarke: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to bring these two awards into line and, if possible, raise both to the present-day value of the pound?

Mr. Strachey: Naturally, we should like all these awards to be raised. I would point out that the Army has the Meritorious Service Medal which the Navy has not got. It would be untrue to say that there is a material advantage on the side of the Navy.

Eviction, Colchester

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he personally gave approval for the eviction of Mrs. P. E. Hill, and her child, from 6c Block, Abbey Fields, Colchester, on 12th July: and, in view of the serious housing situation locally, what attempt was made to provide temporary hostel accommodation for this family until it became possible for them to obtain a home from civilian sources.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. With regard to the second part of the Question, the housing of civilian families is a matter for the local authorities, who were approached on this case by the War


Department on four separate occasions between 7th July, 1949, at the time when Mr. Hill was discharged from the Army, and 12th July, 1950, when we finally took possession of the quarter, in order that the family of a serving soldier might be accommodated.

Mr. Alport: Does the Minister realise that in Colchester, like other towns, it is absolutely impossible to get housing accommodation without going on the housing list, and that therefore there is no way in which an ex-soldier's family, evicted from military quarters, is able to get civilian accommodation? Would it not be possible for the War Office to arrange for some temporary hostel accommodation on War Office property until these people can be absorbed into civilian housing?

Mr. Strachey: I think the hon. Member will recognise the necessity, after a full year's grace, of these quarters being used for the families of serving soldiers, and that families of ex-Service soldiers must leave them. From that point onward, it must be the responsibility of the local authority—although we draw the matter to their attention—to house ex-Service families.

Pay Offices

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War what change has occurred in the policy of using National Service men to perform duties previously performed by civil servants in Army Pay Offices; how many National Service men are still so employed; and to what medical categories is this employment limited.

Mr. Strachey: There has been no change in the policy which I defined on 18th April. National Service men employed in Army Pay Offices are not limited to any particular medical categories. It is not the practice to make public the numbers of soldiers engaged in particular duties.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that mean that National Service men of the highest category are still being used to replace civil servants in these purely sedentary duties?

Mr. Strachey: Not necessarily. It means that, in the opinion of myself and

my advisers, it is necessary to build up an Army Pay Corps partly from National Service men, so that trained men are available against an emergency to man this Corps which has to be expanded very rapidly.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that, in war, men of high medical category are nor employed on these duties, what is the point in instructing National Service men in such duties in time of peace?

Mr. Strachey: I am not saying that men of high medical category are being used for these duties. but if the hon. Member likes tc put down a question I will answer it. It does seem necessary, however, that National Service men should be used in this capacity.

Mr. Chetwynd: Where National Service men have tc be used, will my right hon. Friend see that as many as possible come from the lower grades?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH FORCES (WAR GRATUITIES)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many Poles of all ranks who fought under British command during the war did not pass through the Polish Resettlement Corps, but have made their homes in the United Kingdom; and what would be the total cost of paying war gratuities to all such persons;
(2) whether he is aware of the resentment caused by the fact that war gratuities are not paid to members of the Polish Forces who served under British command unless they became members of the Polish Resettlement Corps; and under what regulation and for what reason this decision was taken.

Mr. Strachey: I have no information as to the number of members of the Polish Forces who have made their homes in the United Kingdom. No general obligation to pay war gratuities to members of the Polish Forces was undertaken by His Majesty's Government, but gratuities were paid to persons whose services were terminated under certain


specified arrangements for their resettlement, whether or not these involved joining the Polish Resettlement Corps. Those who left the Forces in other circumstances were ineligible.

Major Beamish: I cannot understand why the fact of joining the Polish Resettlement Corps should make a man eligible for war gratuity. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Poles who fought most gallantly during the war have not been given a war gratuity, simply because they have not joined the Polish Resettlement Corps but have found themselves jobs?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not suppose that joining the Polish Resettlement Corps was a necessary condition of receiving a gratuity. Quite a large number of Polish personnel who did not join the Resettlement Corps have, nevertheless, received a gratuity.

Air-Commodore Harvey: As the number is extremely small, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into this matter again and review it?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY (VOLUNTEERS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now state what bounty is payable to men who volunteer to join the Territorial Army on completion of their full-time National Service.

Mr. Strachey: I regret that it is not yet possible for me to make a statement upon this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the supreme importance of promoting and maintaining so far as possible the voluntary character of the Territorial Army, and will he, in these circumstances, do his best to ensure that these National Service volunteers are treated in exactly the same way as those who volunteer in the ordinary way, and that there is no financial difference whatsoever?

Mr. Strachey: I certainly recognise the very great importance of this matter.

Brigadier Head: Does the Secretary of State recognise that this declaration about the bounty is at least two years overdue, and that the longer he delays it, the harder it is to make the Territorial Army organisation work?

Mr. Strachey: I would not agree that it is two years overdue, but I think that now the first arrivals from National Service are coming in to the Territorials it is a matter of urgency.

Brigadier Head: Yes, but the recruiting period has been in the last two years. What is the reason for the delay?

Mr. Strachey: It is obviously not a matter that my Department can settle on its own. The other Service Departments. the Treasury and the Government as a whole, are involved.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Secretary of State realise that it is very difficult for commanding officers of Territorial units to persuade National Servicemen tt, volunteer, while doubt about this bounty exists?

Mr. Strachey: I entirely agree that it is a matter of great urgency to make this announcement.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the deteriorating international situation, he proposes to make any special efforts to improve voluntary recruitment for the Territorial Army.

Mr. Strachey: It is the policy of my Department to do everything possible to encourage voluntary recruitment for the Territorial Army. I welcome this opportunity to stress again the very great need of the Territorial Army for the trained leaders of the late war, who are required to continue the training of the National Servicemen now joining the Territorial Army in considerable numbers.

Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the Government, in spite of the fact that voluntary recruitment has been very largely a failure, are only going to make the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has made? Does not the Government realise that there is a deteriorating world situation?

Mr. Strachey: I could not agree that voluntary recruitment to the Territorial Army has been a failure.

Mr. Gammans: Very largely.

Mr. Strachey: I could not agree. I emphasise that what is specially necessary for the Territorial Army is not so much large numbers, because they are being found by the men coming out of National Service, as trained leaders, officers and N.C.O.s, who can help us to keep up and improve the training of the National Service men.

Brigadier Medlicott: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, as another part of the same problem, the possibility of reforming the Home Guard?

Mr. Strachey: That is quite another question.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recruiting would be considerably assisted if he settled this bounty question within the next few days?

Mr. Strachey: That is voluntary recruiting from ex-National Service men.

Major Beamish: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very great shortage of trained instructors for National Service men in the Territorial Army, and does he not think that the complacency of his last answer ill becomes the present deterioration in the world situation?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree that my answer was complacent. I repeat that it would be very unfair to the Territorial Army, and to all those connected with it, to say that voluntary recruiting has been a failure since the war.

Mr. Low: Whilst it may be right to say that voluntary recruitment has not been a failure, surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it is totally inadequate at present? Will he look into this matter personally, to see whether the equipment and conditions of service are really satisfactory to produce the right answer?

Mr. Strachey: We regard voluntary recruitment to the Territorial Army, especially in the category I mentioned, as a matter of the greatest importance.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the rate of voluntary recruitment going up or down?

Mr. Strachey: That is another question.

Mr. McKibbin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the magnificent review in Northern Ireland of the troops of the Territorial Army and Auxiliary Forces is proof that voluntary recruiting is not a failure in Northern Ireland?

Major Beamish: In view of the very great shortage of trained instructors in the Territorial Army, and the Minister's replies today, I beg to give notice that I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Inquiry, Dolgelley (Report)

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the date on which his Department received from the chairman the report of the inquiry held at Dolgelley in November, 1949, into the War Office's requirements for land at Trawsfynydd, Merioneth; what were the recommendations in the report; what are the causes of the delay in announcing the result of the inquiry; and when he proposes to announce the result.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): I received this report on 12th February, 1950. Such reports are never published. Following discussions on many points of detail between my Department, the War Office, the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Parks Commission, agreement has now been reached, and I shall be able to make an announcement next week.

Order No. 728

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how far he consulted local government associations before issuing Order No. 728, 1950.

Mr. Dalton: The associations concerned were fully consulted.

Mr. Lindsay: Was this done with their approval?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir; some of them thought I was making a very rash experiment in freedom.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Widows' Pensions

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will introduce legislation whereby a widow who has been drawing a widow's pension, for which her first husband has paid contributions, may continue to draw this pension if she remarries.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): No, Sir. It would be quite inconsistent with the principles of the National Insurance Scheme to pay widows' pensions to married women.

Mr. Macdonald: Assuming that the rate of contribution of the first husband was on the basis that the widow might not remarry for the remainder of her life, why should the State feel it is under no obligation to her if she does remarry? If the contribution had been paid to an assurance company, they would not refuse to continue her pension when she remarries.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member misunderstands the principle. The widow's pension was intended to provide a substitute for the husband's earnings, and not to put a premium on second marriages.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of National Insurance by what method the casual earnings of widows in receipt of pensions are ascertained.

Dr. Summerskill: On the basis of a declaration by the widow of the net amount earned in the previous pension pay week.

Mr. Wood: In view of the considerable misunderstanding which still exists in the country, would the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to affirm that there are cases, of which this is one, where she and the Government approve of a means test?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. In calculating a widow's earnings allowances are made for insurance, fares, and for the cost of caring for the children. After that, of course, a widow is allowed to keep 30s. I could not agree with him that that is in the nature of a means test.

Mr. Wood: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that a means test was a test

where the means were taken into consideration?

Dr. Summerskill: I took it for granted that the hon. Gentleman knew the intention behind this regulation. It is to ensure that these children, who had already been deprived of one parent, should not be deprived of the other parent for the whole of the week.

Mr. Paton: Would my right hon. Friend say if the particulars required in these cases differ in any essential from the particulars we all have to give to the Income Tax authorities.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will give an estimate of the additional charge to the Exchequer of allowing to widows their full pension, irrespective of any money they may earn.

Dr. Summerskill: The amount directly saved by the earnings rule for widows is about £2 million a year. But the abolition of the rule would involve paying insurance benefits to widows in full-time work, and this would necessitate a complete review of the whole basis of widows' benefits under the National Insurance Act.

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will state the total amount of money paid, and numbers in receipt of, old age pensions at the nearest convenient date; and what increase in National Insurance contributions per contributor would be necessary to cover the additional cost of granting an increase of 5s. per week to each old age pensioner.

Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend make any comment on the suggestion in my Question?

Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend looks at my answer he will see why it is impracticable. At the moment retirement pensions cost the country £273 million a year. If we carried out the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it would mean another £55 million at once, rising to £80 million in 20 years' time.

The following is the reply:

The number of retirement and old age pensioners will, it is estimated, be about 4,625,000 during the current financial year. They will be paid about £273 million. If pensions were increased by 5s. a week the cost would be increased by £55 million at once, rising to £80 million in 20 years' time. None of these figures takes any account of payments or savings by way of National Assistance.

If the additional cost were distributed between the contributor and Exchequer as at present, the contribution payable by or in respect of the individual contributor would go up immediately by 8d. a week and the Exchequer contribution by nearly £25 million a year. But, as my predecessor has pointed out, it would not be practicable under the present insurance scheme to increase pensions without, at the same time, increasing other benefits. The actual cost would, therefore, be very much more.

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether she will make the necessary arrangements now to enable old age pensioners to receive twice the printed amount on their Pension Order Form for the Christmas week, 1950, so as to allow these old people to purchase a few extras for the Christmas festivities.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. This would not be a proper provision to be made under a contributory insurance scheme. Furthermore, the cost of the proposal would be about £5,250,000 in the first year, and to meet this an increase of contributions would be necessary as well as payments from the Exchequer.

Industrial Injuries Fund

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of National Insurance what estimate she made of the administrative cost of the Industrial Injuries Fund before its commencement.

Dr. Summerskill: About £3.500,000 a year when the scheme is fully developed.

National Assistance, Ayrshire

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many widows residing in Ayrshire are in receipt of National Assistance.

Dr. Summerskill: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even if these numbers are not available, many widows find it extremely distasteful to make up a case for national assistance, and would she look at the position with a view to increasing the basic pension in order to avoid this state of affairs?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend will agree, if he visits the National Assistance office in his constituency, that these widows should not be afraid to go to the officials and explain their position. I hope this Question and answer will be brought to the attention of widows in my hon. Friend's constituency, and that in future they will obtain the assistance to which they are entitled.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not disagree with that position at all, but we are finding there are cases of widows who will not apply because it is national assistance, and we have not rid the people of the feeling which I have described? Could we not do something about it?

Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend listens to the answer I am giving to another Question I think he will be reassured.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of National Insurance if she will state the percentage of National Assistance cases who are receiving the full amount of increase recently agreed to by this House.

Dr. Summerskill: The full increase is being paid in about 92 per cent. of Ile cases. The remaining 8 per cent. who, for one reason or another, did not qualify for the increase include such cases as those in local authority homes and those taken over from a local authority with allowances in excess of the new rates.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a case which I have sent her from Dalry where the applicant got an increase of 3s. 6d. for two or three weeks, and, although the circumstances had not altered, it was reduced to Is.? Further, is she aware that I am assured from other Members on this side of the House that there are similar cases?

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot recall the details of every case, but I am quite prepared to look at that case again and explain why the reduction was made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Bricklayers, Liverpool

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Labour how many bricklayers were unemployed in Liverpool during the first week in July.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): On 12th June, the latest date for which figures are available, 50 men with some experience of bricklaying in the Liverpool area were registered as unemployed. Few of these men are, however, fully skilled craftsmen, and acceptable as such to employers.

Mr. Bevins: In view of the shortage of bricklayers in Liverpool and the extent of large-scale unemployment, would the right hon. Gentleman consider an adult training scheme for bricklayers?

Mr. Isaacs: Wherever training is necessary, we have endeavoured to follow it up, but in this instance the trouble is that so many people with a smattering of knowledge go and register themselves as bricklayers, and it is not until they go to an employer and get rejected that we find out the trouble.

Clothing Industry

Squadron-Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the extent of the present unemployment in the clothing industry; and what steps he proposes to take to ease the situation.

Mr. Isaacs: Owing to seasonal fluctuations, there has recently been some increase in the number of persons whose last employment was in certain sections of the clothing industry. The total number of unemployed in all groups of the clothing industry was 8,841 on 12th June. My local offices will assist those who apply to find suitable alternative employment.

Squadron-Leader Burden: Is the Minister aware that there is also considerable part-time unemployment now, and will he and his colleagues consider reducing the amount of Purchase Tax that is paid on general goods?

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to put that down to the appropriate Minister. Unemployment within the whole industry is a little less than 11 per cent., which is the national average over all industries.

Mr. Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the clothing industry unemployment does not exist in that portion of the trade which pays Purchase Tax?

Mr. Isaacs: The point of this, of course, is that this is seasonal unemployment.

Forces (Call-up Arrangements)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has recently taken to review the arrangements of His Majesty's Government for call-up to the Forces in the event of an emergency; whether he is satisfied that those arrangements are now complete; and whether decisions have yet been taken as to reserved occupations.

Mr. Isaacs: These arrangements, including those for reservation, are kept under constant review and are adjusted from time to time as circumstances change. They are ready to operate at any time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving to the public some indication in broad terms of these arrangements in order that the very large number of people affected may have some idea where their duty would lie in an emergency?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why?

Mr. Isaacs: Because I consider it would not be in the public interest at this juncture.

Mr. Lindsay: For the benefit of hon. Members of this House who may be called up on reserve, can the Government say whether pairs would be provided?

County Durham

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of males and females unemployed in the county of Durham; the numbers signing on at each exchange; and what assurance he can give of alternative employment in the near future.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply to the first part of the Question involves a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT. County Durham forms part of the North-East Coast


Development Area and, as my hon. Friend is aware, all practicable steps are being taken to improve the opportunities for employment in these areas.

Following is the table:


NUMBERS OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT 12TH JUNE, 1950, AT EACH EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE IN THE COUNTY OF DURHAM.


Employment Exchange
Males
Females
Total


Barnard Castle 
30
10
40


Birtley
184
113
297


*Bishop Auckland
406
30
436


*Blaydon-on-Tyne
272
132
404


*Chester-le-Street
389
82
471


Chopwell
62
13
75


Cockfield
83
4
87


*Consett 
140
85
225


*Crook 
235
47
282


*Darlington
226
181
407


Dunston-on-Tyne
151
—
151


*Durham
430
31
461


East Boldon
57
43
100


Felling-on-Tyne
285
26
311


Gainford
5
3
8


*Gateshead
1,505
401
1,906


Hartlepool
161
124
285


Haswell
47
27
74


Haverton Hill
21
123
144


*Horden
142
145
287


*Houghton-le-Spring
447
180
627


Jarrow and Hebburn
1,026
635
1,661


Lanchester
67
16
83


Middleton-in-Teesdale
5
2
7


Pallion
718
317
1,035


Seaham Harbour
234
94
328


Sedgefield
11
4
15


Shildon
87
39
126


South Shields
1,871
383
2,254


Southwick-on-Weir
221
83
304


*Spennymoor
341
91
432


Stanhope
47
6
53


*Stanley
377
129
506


*Stockton and Thornaby
450
428
878


*Sunderland
1,797
514
2,311


Washington Station
73
57
130


West Hartlepool
732
257
989


Wingate
224
92
316


Wolsingham
7
1
8


Total
13,566
4,948
18,514


* Including Youth Employment Office.

Men
Women


Number of unemployed, registered as fit for light labouring work
4,244
10


Number of registered disabled
3,446
139

Shipbuilding, Scotland

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the extent of

present unemployment or short-time in the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.

Mr. Isaacs: On 12th June, the latest date for which figures are available, 3,292 workers whose last employment was in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry were registered as unemployed in Scotland, including 231 who were only temporarily stopped from their employment. Statistics are not available of the number of workpeople on short-time but not registered as unemployed.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend consider consulting with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to providing alternative employment where unemployment has arisen in the shipbuilding yards, in order to avoid the unemployment we had in the years before the war?

Mr. Isaacs: As has been previously reported to the House, these negotiations with the President of the Board of Trade are and have been continuing, and efforts are made to attract heavy industry into these areas. We can get light industries, but what are required are heavy industries.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman has the figures for the various districts of Scotland, can he say how many relate to the city of Aberdeen?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not the memory man. If the hon. and learned Gentleman puts that Question down I will give an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

House-building, Edinburgh

Sir William Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the movement recently begun in the city of Edinburgh for the self-building of houses by those who have no near expectation of housing accommodation; and what steps he is taking to encourage such individual enterprise.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I will be glad to consider applications to build houses from private persons or housing associations if the people for whom the houses are intended fall within the categories described in my statement of 29th March.

Sir W. Darling: Would the Secretary of State for Scotland have it in mind


that in days gone by quite a large number of houses were built by people for their own occupation?

Mr. McNeil: I am anxious to encourage anyone who has the facilities for building houses, if the houses are intended for people among whom the greatest need is felt.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is not the fact that a man is willing to build his own house an indication of his need?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir, it is an indication of his willingness to build a house.

Sir W. Darling: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a police officer has more need of a provided house than a clerk, who is able to build one?

Mr. McNeil: I could not answer that question without examining the conditions of the clerk and of the policeman.

Barley

Sir W. Darling: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual Scottish production of barley in 1940, 1942, 1944, 1946 and 1948; and what proportion was bought for distilling.

Mr. McNeil: The production of barley in Scotland in the years referred to was respectively 104,000 tons, 159,000 tons, 214,000 tons, 201,000 tons and 182,000 tons. Information is not available as to the proportion of those crops bought for distilling.

Sir W. Darling: Is it not a fact that the production of barley is falling steeply in Scotland, and are the Government taking steps to remedy that unfortunate situation?

Mr. McNeil: I agree that the position of the barley acreage in Scotland must be constantly attended to, but I could not agree that it is falling steeply.

Sir H. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply to distilling the same principles of need and willingness as he has applied to housing?

Mr. James Hudson: Is there not enough whisky in the world without having to increase it?

Sir W. Darling: Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to correct the ignorance of the hon. Member for Ealing, West (Mr. J. Hudson) of the fact that the demand for this important Scottish

commodity is universal, and would be greater if the Government would permit it?

Pier, Orkney

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the pier on the island of South Fara in Orkney is excluded from the list of essential piers given in the annexe to Command Paper No. 7976.

Mr. McNeil: No representations about landing facilities on the small island of South Fara have been made either to the Highlands Advisory Panel or myself. Should any representations be made I would, of course, consider them on their merits.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Secretary of State say that it is his intention that every inhabited island should have a pier? As South Fara has some 20 inhabitants, does he not agree that its pier is essential?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think I quite accept the hon. Gentleman's generalisation. It would be very expensive indeed. I would be glad to consider any case on its merits.

Highland Advisory Panel

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement on the future of the Highland Panel.

Mr. McNeil: I have been considering the position of the Highland Advisory Panel in consequence of the publication of the programme of Highland development, but I do not propose to make any changes immediately.

Mr. Grimond: Is this a change in policy? Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether that is a change from his statement made after Whitsun? Does it mean that at some future time the function of the Highland Panel will be changed, or is that no longer his policy?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir, there is no change in policy. I would consult the Highland Panel if I were contemplating a change.

Mr. John MacLeod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless action is taken under recommendations already made by the Panel, the people of the


Highlands of Scotland will be most disappointed and will feel that such bodies are no longer useful?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman knows that, under this Government, action has taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions — PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of our recent failure in international games, he will consider allocating to the Minister of Education or other new Minister, responsibility for the encouragement and sponsoring of post-school training in athletics, team games, physical culture and sports generally.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, through his administration of the Education Act and the Physical Training and Recreation Act, is already responsible for the encouragement of physical education and training. To this end he supports the youth organisations, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the national sports organisations, and makes financial assistance available for the provision of playing spaces and facilities. His first objective, however, is the development to the full of each person's physical potentialities and not the fostering of success at competitive games, though I would hope that this might follow.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite those efforts, our recent defeats in soccer, cricket, tennis, golf and boxing, and the rest, have reduced our national morale and our international prestige in sport very seriously indeed? Will he not reconsider whether it would not be another form of social service if we were to sponsor and finance promising athletes after their school days, adult sporting organisations, and games generally?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought it was much more important to raise the general standard of physical culture and athletics than to cultivate specialism.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Are we to take it from his reply that the Prime Minister does not share the predilections

of the right hon. Lady the Minister of National Insurance for the rule of law?

Mr. Fernyhough: Is it not a fact that if the world likes anything better than a good winner, it is a good loser?

Mr. H. Strauss: Why did the hen. Gentleman who asked this Question refer to the Minister of Education as a "new Minister"?

Mr. Keenan: Would the Prime Minister consider suggesting to the M.C.C. a new professional captain to go to Australia, so that we might get something done in the cricket world?

Sir W. Darling: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider a scheme for boxing under what might be called "the Summerskill rules"?

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Mr. Nehru on the war in Korea.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are in constant consultation with all Commonwealth Governments on questions concerned with the Korean situation, but it would be contrary to the existing practice to reveal the nature of confidential communications which puss with Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the intense interest with which these Notes have been followed right throughout the world, can the Prime Minister not say something to assure us that he is doing his best to support Mr. Nehru in his efforts?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are doing their best to support the United Nations.

Mr. Eden: In view of the publication of this correspondence, will the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear that I understand him aright, that two resolutions were passed by the Security Council, on 25th and 27th June and that His Majesty's Government intend to stand by those resolutions and have no intention of altering their position in that respect at all?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIMBER, DRY ROT (RESEARCH)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will appoint a special commission to investigate the causes and cures in all forms of dry rot and worm rot in structures and produce proposals of administrative measures to prevent and check further spread of this epidemic.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Forest Products Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is conducting research on the subjects of dry rot and the insects that attack timber. Much information has been obtained and this is published in leaflets, books and articles in the technical and general Press; a film has been completed and is now in circulation and a special travelling exhibition is visiting 20 towns in the course of the next eight months. Every endeavour is thus being made to bring information on the prevention and cure of dry rot and insect attack to the attention of builders, architects, housing authorities and householders. In these circumstances, I do not think that a special commission is necessary.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this exhibition makes it quite clear that the very prevalent idea that it is the "Black Watch Beetle" that attacks wood is quite wrong?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC EXPLOSION, AFTER-EFFECTS (INQUIRY)

Mr. Reader Harris: asked the Lord President of the Council if the Government have taken adequate steps to ascertain the more distant after-effects of the atom bomb exploded over Japan in 1945, particularly in regard to biological aftereffects; whether such findings can now be published; or whether he will consider sending a mission from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to Japan.

Mr. H. Morrison: There is an American scientific mission in Japan studying this subject, And the information it collects is available to His Majesty's Government. Some of it has already been published in technical journals.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SAVINGS

Savings (Cost-of-Living Index)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will produce a scheme whereby payment of the first £500 invested in National Savings Certificates shall be based on the cost-of-living index so as to safeguard small investors against loss of real capital through depreciation of the pound sterling and to encourage the wage earners in their support of the National Savings Movement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): No, Sir.

Mr. Osborne: Is it not a great scandal that the British Government should be satisfied to pay 16s. in the pound to men and women who have saved week by week to assist the National Savings Movement?

Sir S. Cripps: When there is a change in the value of money, it affects all the citizens.

Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the pound sterling at lst July, as compared with 20s. in 1945.

Sir S. Cripps: About 16s. in mid-May, the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Chancellor give the House any idea of when he anticipates that the pound will start to recover its value instead of continually losing it?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot now make a general statement on the economic position. I made one quite recently.

Mr. Lindsay: Does not the Chancellor know that the figures which he has given to the House are an appalling indictment of the Government?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think it is.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Chancellor say whether the increase in cost affects Ministers in respect of their free cars in the same way as it affects private motorists?

Dollar Earnings

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the United Kingdom's dollar earnings for 1950 so far are sufficient to make up for the smaller allocation of Marshall Aid to be received.

Sir S. Cripps: I gave figures on 5th July for net earnings of gold and dollars in the first six months of 1950. I do not know what E.R.P. aid will be allocated to us in the future.

Mr. Osborne: The figures which the Chancellor gave to us recently were for the whole sterling area. Is the Chancellor aware that what the House wants to know is what are the United Kingdom earnings in dollars? Surely he must have the E.C.A. figures? Can he tell the House whether the country is better off today than it was last year with regard to its net dollar earnings?

Sir S. Cripps: I have told the hon. Member three times now that the detailed figures are not yet available and that when they are, they will be published.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Chancellor aware that he keeps giving the same answer that we shall have the figures in due course, and that that will be in six months' time, when all the interest will have gone from the question?

Ten-Shilling Notes

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the poor condition of many 10s. notes now in circulation; and if he will state the average life expected of these notes.

Sir S. Cripps: Notes handed in to banks which are found to be unfit for circulation are withdrawn, but it is always possible for notes to pass from hand to hand for some time before reaching the banks. The average life of a 10s. note is less than one year.

Mr. Hurd: How does that average life compare with the average life of the pound note? Has not the Chancellor noticed that many more very filthy 10s. notes come into his hands than pound notes?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that very few of either come into my hands.

Income Tax

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue have authority to grant an allowance for Income Tax purposes in respect of wear and tear of clothing which is experienced by people who have artificial limbs.

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Fiduciary Issue (Announcement)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cause of the delay in announcing to the House the decision made on 27th June to increase the fiduciary issue by £50,000,000; and if, in future, he will revert to the pre-war practice of making an oral announcement of any such increase.

Sir S. Cripps: There was no delay, as the announcement was made on 28th June in my reply to a Written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). I see no need for an oral announcement in such cases.

Sir H. Williams: As the whole idea when the Act was passed in 1928 was i:hat an immediate announcement should be made so that, if necessary, the Opposition could challenge the decision on grounds of urgent definite public importance, does the Chancellor think that the practice should be restored, having regard to the importance of both inflationary and deflationary movements on the part of the Bank of England?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The present practice has been followed since 1941, and it is quite satisfactory.

Sir H. Williams: It was not followed before the war when we were civilised.

Sir S. Cripps: 1941 is since the war began.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that the Socialist Government can only implement their General Election promises by means of the printing press, by printing pieces of paper which are continually going down in purchasing power?

Home-Grown Tobacco (Duty)

Mr. Cuthbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he is proposing to charge Duty on home-grown commercial tobacco.

Sir S. Cripps: All tobacco grown commercially in the United Kingdom has been subject to Excise Duty since 1910.

Mr. Cuthbert: Does the Chancellor realise that if he gave some concession to home grown commercial tobacco it would save us a tremendous amount of dollars in that we should not require to import so much tobacco?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not believe that the best use for the land of this country is growing commercial tobacco.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is at the moment a misunderstanding between the home growers and his Department, in particular with reference to shredding, and will he take steps to clear this up so that the pursuit of revenue will not hinder a very harmless—indeed, useful—hobby?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that the home growers of tobacco are trying to get advantages which are not due to them.

Discriminatory Trade Practices

Mr. Russell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the official pronouncement made by Sir Sidney Caine, British Treasury representative in the United States, that the United States and Britain should lead the way in ending discriminatory trade practices, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member is presumably referring to a much abbreviated newspaper report of an address given by Sir Sydney Caine at a conference on American foreign policy held at an American University in which he referred to the removal, as soon as circumstances permit, of various kinds of discriminatory trade practices which are liable to lead to international friction, as one of the general objectives of international trade policy which can contribute to world security. This is, of course, in accordance with the continuing policy of His Majesty's Government to promote a

return to multilateral trade throughout the world.

Mr. Russell: Does that answer mean that His Majesty's Government still stand by the principle of Imperial preference?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, Sir.

Pensioners, Dollar Area

Mr. Low: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that long-service pensioners of the fighting Services now residing in the dollar area have to pay a higher rate of taxation on their pensions since devaluation; and whether he will alter the method of computation which produces this result.

Sir S. Cripps: I assume the hon. Member is referring to a case in which the pensioner has income from dollar sources in addition to his pension. Under present law a non-resident Service pensioner, like non-resident British subjects in general, pays tax on his United Kingdom income at the effective rate appropriate to his total income, which is necessarily and properly computed in terms of sterling. I cannot agree that devaluation affords any ground for altering the law.

Mr. Low: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that these people have to pay more tax and, therefore, have less pension to enjoy because they have to pay more tax, and that they also have less pension to enjoy by reason of devaluation? Does he not think that this is very unfair, and ought he not to look into it again?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. It has been looked into, but it is the general law which is applicable not only to pensioners but to everybody abroad, and when the value of money alters, one still has to make Income Tax calculations in sterling and not in some foreign currency.

War Damage Compensation

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total amount of war damage compensation claimed; the total amount agreed to; and the amounts so far paid, respectively, by the War Damage Commission for incidents in the county borough of West Ham, giving late claimants separately.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.

Service Personnel, Germany (Purchases)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why purchases made by families of Service personnel in the British Army of the Rhine of consumer goods in the United Kingdom may only be paid for from accounts accrued from pay and allowances earned during their current terms of service in the British Army of the Rhine; where else this rule applies; and if he will end this interference in the use of personal incomes.

Sir S. Cripps: The chief reason is because goods so exported can be sold abroad. This may result in the people concerned getting more than a fair share of foreign exchange and our normal export trade suffering corresponding loss. The arrangements apply to Service personnel who are serving anywhere outside the scheduled territories. Additional funds are allowed for settling-in expenses and for other exceptional circumstances.

Major Legge-Bourke: Cannot the Chancellor trust the families of British Servicemen a little more than that? Why must he be so suspicious about them?

Sir S. Cripps: Because we were conscious of a very great deal of abuse, especially in connection with the export of drinks and tobacco.

Penrhyn Estate (Death Duties)

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will indicate the precise area of land in the county of Caernarvon belonging to the trustees of the Penrhyn estate which has been offered to the Treasury in settlement of Death Duties.

Sir S. Cripps: This offer is the subject of negotiations now proceeding, and I cannot yet say precisely what area the transaction will finally cover.

Mr. Garner-Evans: Is the Chancellor aware that in these areas of North Wales there is very considerable indignation that the Chancellor should be taking over this land, and that the people are worried lest it should mean an extension of nationalisation without consulting the workers in an industry?

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure that they are not at all worried, but would rather have a good landlord.

Mr. Garner-Evans: Has the Chancellor been to this district recently, and does he really understand the innovation?

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of sterling balances to be released to members of the European Payments Union under Article 39 of the Agreement of 7th July, 1950.

Sir S. Cripps: The total amount of sterling balances which could be used under paragraph 39 is of the order of £200 million. The actual amount so used will depend on the extent to which the holders are in deficit with the Union and will certainly be very much less. Any such use of sterling balances is covered by the Economic Co-operation Administration's guarantee to us against gold losses.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE PREMISES (POWER OF ENTRY)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total number of officials authorised to carry out inspections and investigations in private houses and premises without a search warrant at 15th July.

Sir S. Cripps: The current number of officials who may exercise statutory powers to enter private houses, used exclusively as such, is 4,170; of whom 3,154 are officers of the Inland Revenue—mainly valuers; 996 are assessors acting for the War Damage Commission, and 20 are members or officers of the Board of Control who, under Section 206 (2) of the Lunacy Act of 1890, have power to en ter a private house to visit a person apparently detained as a lunatic without an order or certificate.

Mr. F. Maclean: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say if that figure includes all other private premises?

Sir S. Cripps: It includes all private premises.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is 4,170 too many?

Sir S. Cripps: Considering that the majority of these powers have existed since 1836, I do not think that they have been abused.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Industrial Workers (Leave)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now reconsider the application of industrial civil servants for 12 days annual leave.

Sir S. Cripps: This application has been tabled as an item of new business for discussion at the next meeting of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments on 27th July. I shall, of course, consider it in the light of the arguments then advanced.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that reply mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made up his mind at this moment to reject the application?

Sir S. Cripps: It means that I shall deal with this in the proper way and not by question and answer in the House.

Temporary Clerks (Pay)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Civil Service Clerical Association urging that consideration should be given to raising the minimum wages of male temporary clerks, grade III, in London, the larger towns excluding London, and elsewhere; and what reply he has made.

Sir S. Cripps: No such representations have been received.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may he taken before Ten o'Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1950-51

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £40, he granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Overseas Food Corporation for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951, namely:

Civil Estimates, 1950-51



£


Class IX, Vote 3, Ministry of Food
10


Class II, Vote 9, Colonial Office
10


Class II, Vote 11, West African Produce Control Board
10


Class II, Vote 6, Commonwealth Relations Office
10


Total
£40

OVERSEAS FOOD CORPORATION

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Once more we have a Debate in this Committee on what used to be called the groundnuts scheme, and once more it is a Minister of Food who replies. It is not the same Minister, and the Opposition are glad of that. The late Minister of Food, the present Secretary of State for War, invariably talked of the groundnut scheme in Army metaphors, using military illustrations. It was to be run, he said, as a military operation. I can only share the hope of one disillusioned person outside this House who said recently that if the Minister ran the groundnut scheme as a military operation, he hoped that the Secretary of State for War was now not running the British Army as he ran the groundnut scheme.
It is, as I have said, a new Minister, but it is the view of the Opposition that it should not be the Minister of Food who replies to Debates of this kind. We have always held the view that this and similar schemes should be administered by the Colonial Office, and it will eventually be to that solution that the Government themselves, we think, will be obliged to come. This is the largest Government colonial venture in the British Empire. Of


course, it is not the largest economic investment in the Empire. For example, rubber in Malaya or groundnuts in West Africa represent larger capital investment, but this is the largest direct investment on the economic plane of the British Government anywhere in the Colonial Empire, and as such it raises a host of problems which we think cannot be impartially solved without the Colonial Office being responsible for that task.
For example, there are the large social services that, quite rightly, are beginning to spring up in Tanganyika because of this scheme. There is the large hospital which many hon. Members have visited, with beds for over 300 people in Kongwa, where we are now told clearing of the ground is actually being stopped. There is a health service almost as large as the whole health service for Tanganyika itself. There are many schools. There is a police force. The future of this scheme, whether it succeeds or whether it fails, carries with it immense consequences for the lives of the African people, and we believe that this scheme should be administered by a Department that for generations has tried to serve those parts of the British Empire which have not yet reached self-government within it.
Hon. Members will have read a recent book by the Information Officer, as he then was, of the Overseas Food Corporation, and no doubt it will be frequently quoted from in this Debate. Mr. Wood, in that book, says that the whole conception of the groundnut scheme means a complete reversal of the Colonial Office policy of preserving native ways of life as much as possible and building on existing foundations. If that is so, this scheme should certainly not be administered by a Department whose first duty it is to provide cheap raw materials and foodstuffs for the British home market. Last year in the Colonial Office Blue Book 12 lines alone were devoted to the groundnut scheme. This year the amount of space has doubled. Yet there are only 25 lines devoted to it, but only the most passing references, with no Ministerial responsibility in the Colonial Office for what is the largest economic interest of His Majesty's Government and the British people in the Colonies.
In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to answer in this Debate, I should

like to begin by suggesting to him that the best contribution he can make to the advancement of Africa, and incidentally to the good of this scheme, is to sever the responsibility of his own Department for it. We are convinced that if the general inquiry into this scheme for which we have long pressed is carried out in Tanganyika, it will be shown to have a considerable future as part of the general development of Tanganyika, and if it is linked up with the many other developments going on in that country—diamonds, sisal, lead, or whatever they may be. No Minister of Food could seriously suggest that he should have the responsibility for a scheme of that kind linked with mineral and other developments.
A few days ago I read an article by the late Colonial Secretary, Mr. Creech Jones, which is interesting because it is the first expression of opinion that he has made publicly since he no longer had to defend in the House, usually by his silence, the over-hasty actions of his then colleague at the Ministry of Food. Mr. Creech Jones said:
 I have always been sceptical about quick results and unplanned development in Africa and have never had time for loose talk about the great open spaces of Africa waiting to be cultivated.
The right hon. Gentleman used words which certainly the late Minister of Food has not used—
 It does not pay to be contemptuous of experience in the Tropics.
So much, at this stage anyhow, for the Ministerial change. There have been many changes in the last year, a number of them being along the lines that the Opposition have frequently suggested. The Minister has gone. Sir Leslie Plummer has gone. An inquiry, though very limited, is to be made into the working of one part of the scheme. And two reports have appeared recenty, written from different angles, but reaching the same conclusion about the working of the groundnut scheme.
The first is the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of the House, on which hon. Members from both sides sit. The second is the book written by Mr. Wood, which it was a little more difficult for him to get published than the Members of the Public Accounts Committee their recommendations. Members of the Committee will remember that Mr. Gollancz,


whose books in the closing days of the war Coalition do not suggest that this was his usual custom, spoke of the hold-up in publishing this book as being due to his making every effort over several months to discover the truth. He ended by taking a lofty moral line and spoke of considering the public interest when he declined to publish this book. Well, the book has been published; the public interest has been considered, and very considerable good has resulted for everybody—for all of us, because we have all got a lot to learn from an objective account of that kind, and we are all in this together, both sides of the Committee. Our finances and, above all, the honour and prestige of Britain in Africa are permanently linked with the fortunes of this scheme.
As to finances, I do not think that there can be any doubt in this Committee as to the way things are going. Although the accounts are not yet out for the year ending 31st March, 1950, we have had by Question and answer in the House a certain amount of information. We were told recently that advances to the Overseas Food Corporation—of course, the vast proportion of that is for this particular scheme—now total £35–£36 million; and it looks as if this particular scheme, even cut down though it is in scale, is costing £1 million a month more than the income from it.
So far as the returns are concerned, we have done our best to make a calculation based on the harvest so far as it has been gathered in. Having spent £36 million, much of it in capital equipment in districts where the work may be cut down, like Kongwa, it looks as if the actual returns this year so far in groundnuts, sunflower, sorghum and maize, is £144,000. No one can seriously suggest that that represents a revolutionary increase in the oil and fat supplies of the world.
The most sinister feature of both the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of the House and Mr. Wood's book is the convincing evidence of the way in which the House and the country have been misled about the scheme over the last three years. Two years ago next week, from the Government side the then Minister of Food, after quite considerable experience of the difficulties and no longer in the first flush of enthusiasm for the scheme, used these words:

… the scheme, far from being less sound economically, or less profitable than the original estimate, was substantially more sound and profitable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 871.]
He talked in a way to suggest that a temporary rise in oil and fat prices in the world was going to be of permanent advantage, although our costs went up, in making our return go up also. But, of course, all who study these things know that for the last year, anyhow, the world price of oils and fats has been coming down as production elsewhere increases. That was a pretty bad illustration of misleading the House, and there are plenty of other opportunities to see the same pattern at work in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
Last November the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the cutting down of the target was deliberate planning, when all the evidence now published shows a series of hasty improvisations and that there was no conscious planning at all. As to the answers which he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who asked for details of how much of the land which the right hon. Gentleman said had been cleared was land that scarcely needed any clearing, the publication of figures now shows how grossly Parliament was misled.
It is not only in the field of economic facts that the House was not taken into the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman. On the whole question of the staff relations in Africa, every effort was made to hide the real facts from Parliament. We never heard a word from the right hon. Gentleman of what is now appearing in the memoranda submitted by all the heads of departments in Africa to General Harrison, on one occasion by every single head of a department and on another by a large number of them, complaining of the
 Lack of decision at all levels of our organisation,
 Lack of any policy on which to base a plan,
and
 Diminishing faith in our leaders.
Hon. Members will remember last November the panic flight of the then Minister of Food to Africa. He has said that there was the utmost confidence in Sir Leslie Plummer among the high executives, and when copies of HANSARD


reach East Africa—the staff out there waited until they could read exactly what he had said—the indignation and incredulity were so widespread that the right hon. Gentleman had to make a special journey to try to still the troubles.
All this may in part be due to the mentality of the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope that it is; because with a change in the high command of the Ministry of Food, perhaps Parliament will be taken into the confidence of the Government. We want a scheme along these lines to succeed. It is not at all the mistakes that we condemn, but the fact that the Minister glossed over the mistakes, misled the House and, in the words of Mr. Wood, brought needless discredit on the Government and has almost jeopardised the whole future of the scheme. As he says, there was procrastination sliding into prevarication, evasion slipping into equivocation and so, step by step, the position arising in Africa when officialdom was not only failing to tell the whole story but anybody who did tell the truth was liable to be denounced as a scoundrel or a fool.
I do not want to speak too long about the past, because it is the future that we want to consider, but I remind the Minister of Food, and still more his predecessor, of the words quoted in one of the "yellow books" by Mr. Gollancz, that the use of recriminating about the past is to enforce effective action at the present; and it is the present about which we are concerned today.
We shall await the Minister's speech with the very greatest interest. One thing, however, has already emerged, that there is no indication of responding to the plea of the Opposition last November for sending out a high-powered inquiry to investigate the whole working of the scheme. This, I am afraid. does not augur well for the Minister's responsibility for it. Last November we on this side moved in the House that, in view of the most disquieting facts disclosed in the first Report of the Corporation, it was urgent that there should be a full inquiry into the present situation and the future prospects of the Corporation's work in East Africa. Nothing that we have heard or read since has altered that view. We were told at the election time—it is in one of the talking

points of the Socialist Party and it was used no doubt by those candidates who were brave enough to mention the groundnut scheme at all—that an inquiry as asked for by the Tories would only hamper the future development of the scheme.
Now, we are to have an inquiry despite all that, and a mission is going out shortly if it has not already started. But it is an absurdly limited inquiry and cannot possibly fulfil the real purpose of an inquiry to see the picture as a whole. The inquiry incidentally is led by a man whom all who know him respect very much—Sir Charles Lockhart—but who, as a member of the Board himself, is not a suitable person to lead an inquiry of this kind. The inquiry is strictly limited to obtain further advice on the future long- and short-term agricultural policies to be pursued at Kongwa. It is perfectly true that the greatest difficulties and most of the misuse of public money have taken place at Kongwa, but the scheme must be seen as a whole and independent investigation is most urgently needed to embrace Kongwa and the other districts and indeed also the development of Tanganyika as a whole.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will direct his mind. to some of the points about which an inquiry should be charged to discover the truth, for example, whether the scheme should now be treated as part of colonial development as a whole and forthwith transferred to the Colonial Office; whether the time has not come for those who run the scheme to do so in East Africa and not from London; and whether there is still the same urgent necessity in the light of the world situation of oil seeds and fats to push on with the original plan for oil seeds even in this smaller form.
I wish to dwell for a moment on this. When the scheme was first bruited, there was general recognition of the crucial situation in regard to oils and fats, and much was forgiven the Government at the time because it was recognised that, with the recovery of the world, without the raw materials position improving, there might be great difficulties and widespread hardship here and throughout the world. But the recuperative power of mankind is enormous and quite unpredictable. Recent figures suggest that the Government ought to look again into the


oils and fats position. I was reading, as no doubt other hon. Members read, the questions and answers directed to the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Food by the Public Accounts Committee. He was asked:
But there must have been a time when you realised that things were not going to be. ….
—in the field of supplies of fats and oils—
as bad as you anticipated?
To which he answered:
I think if you press me on that point, that must have been during the latter part of 1948.
He was asked a few minutes later by the same hon. Member on the Government side:
By the time you realised that the shortage was at any rate being mastered, to put it that way, if you like (as you say, there is still a shortage) you had advanced to the Corporation about one-half of your present advances, which are I think in the neighbourhood of £34 million?
He replied:
That is so.
What I think would be of great assistance to the House would be if the Minister could give us some information on this subject. We see the present trend in prices and supplies, and so far the present trend in prices has been a steady decline, for the last year, anyway. All the calculations of the present Secretary of State for War on the returns are now falsified and in regard to the production figures there has been a steady expansion. We are now in the world almost back to the pre-war position in regard to oils and fats but, of course, it is quite true that, despite the world war, the population of the world has enormously increased.
If hon. Members will look at some tables which appeared in the "Economist" in April, they will see some extraordinarily interesting facts. They will see that we are in this country nearly back to the per capita consumption of fats of the pre-war level, despite the increase in population. In the pre-war period, up to 1938, the consumption of fats in England was 65.8 lb. per head, in 1948 it had fallen to 58.4 lb., and last year it rose to 64 lb. This year it is expected to be 65.1 lb., which is only.7 of a lb. off the pre-war figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. [An HON. MEMBER: "Neither can the hon. Member opposite."] I am not attempting

to. I should be very glad indeed of any increased consumption in this field most certainly we all would. I very much hope that some of the controls which prevent that increase from being enjoyed will be speedily removed.
But if these figures are correct, as I have no reason to doubt they are, it puts a rather different slant on the present position in regard to oils and fats. It is true that this must be looked at as a world problem, I quite agree, and many countries are a consuming more which used to export surpluses, but nonetheless the trend of these figures makes one a little concerned and makes one wonder whether the problem is as urgent as it was before, and whether we need to proceed with the same relentless speed on production of oils and fats.
Having made that sort of discovery, any commission would then turn, in the light of their conclusions, to try to produce a realistic target for future production. We are told that at the present moment the target is to be 600,000 acres cleared by 1954 and costing £48 million. I do not know anybody, unless it be Sir Leslie Plummer, who really believes that that production will be achieved and that acreage cleared and planted at that price. The Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Food before the Public Accounts Committee spoke of Sir Leslie's figures, some of them, as being "unduly sanguine." So far, certainly, the experience of any estimates we have had before has led the House to share that attitude.
It is very hard to try to follow the various changes that there have been in the total acreage which was to have been cleared and planted. Originally it was to be 3 million acres and to cost £24 million. In 1947 it was estimated that 150,000 acres would be cleared by the end of 1947, but only 7,500 acres were cleared and planted. The Overseas Food Corporation asked permission to clear and plant 2⅓ million acres at a cost of £66 million, but the Government turned that down. Then they came back with another suggestion, to cut down the production at Kongwa from 450,000 acres to 90,000 acres and at Urambo from 300,000 to 90,000 acres. It has produced from the scheme as a whole products from 600,000 acres at a cost of £48 million and on that particular proposal I think


we are now working and the Corporation is operating in Africa.
We are now budgeting for one-fifth of the original scheme costing twice as much and as I said, no one really believes that this is a realistic figure. Only a commission inquiring into Tanganyika as a whole and all the three centres of groundnut production could possibly produce worthwhile conclusions. We have had some harvest figures. Everyone must be glad that the Southern Province figures, both for groundnuts and sunflowers, was a very respectable yield and the Urambo figures for groundnuts are good, but it is no light thing that 1,258 acres at Kongwa have had to be written off, and it will be no consolation to have a small local inquiry into Kongwa which is not married up with the problem as a whole.
Any commission of inquiry which went to Africa should investigate whether it is not better in the future to drop the ambitious schemes of the past and have a series of small experimental plots, pilot units. I could never see any reason why this could not have happened before. The only reason was the great anxiety of the then Minister of Food to achieve quick results; but quick results attempted in Africa invariably bring bitter disappointment and bitter disillusion. No one can blame the men on the spot for the failure to have pilot schemes and to feel their way cautiously. Indeed, if anyone reads the evidence given by the Public Accounts Committee, this is quite plain.
Instructions from the Ministry"—
we are told—
precluded the managing agent from changing over to an experimental policy and pilot schemes and the Chairman of the Corporation informed your Committee that after the Corporation took over any decision to make such a change would have had to be taken by the Government.
I cannot see why the Government did not take that decision when disillusion must have been apparent, even to the most optimistic people. There is no reason at all why they did not take that decision, which could stand up to any economic test. The only reasons must have been political and, of the many unconvincing answers I have heard given in the various vexed discussions about this scheme, the least convincing were those of Sir Leslie Plummer to the Public Accounts Committee, when he denied that

modest schemes of 500 acres in various parts of the country would have yielded any profitable results. The evidence is a clear indication that the Corporation, the scheme and the Government are more likely to prosper in future under a change of leader.
I have very little doubt that when an inquiry does take place, as it is bound to do—and the sooner the better—it will recognise that this scheme has ceased to be a groundnut scheme and should be treated as part of the general development of Tanganyika, with sisal, cattle, timber and oil seeds all playing their part. We hear very little of the other things which were to have happened. Nothing now is heard of the great timber possibilities, the large dollar exports in timber that the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Food spoke about; of the very valuable and expensive sawmill erected at Noli before anybody had even counted the trees to see if there was any work for the sawmill to do. All these things are now coming into the daylight, and the public resentment is naturally very strong indeed.
Above all, any inquiry of this kind will help us to make up our minds how we are best to learn the lesson we have to learn, which is how in Africa can we prove whether mechanised farming on a large scale will pay. Not the least maddening feature of the groundnut scheme up till now has been that, because of the headlong speed with which it was started, we have learned nothing of any value as to the future of large-scale mechanised farming in Africa; or rather we have learned very little. We have learned nothing approaching what we might have done as to the future of mechanised farming in Africa because of the political surroundings in which this scheme has run since its conception.
Many of us who know and love that part of the world believe that there is a future in Africa, in Tanganyika, for both forms of cultivation, the peasant cultivation with modern science helping him, and large-scale mechanised farming. Such a commission could lay down the lines on which the two forms of agriculture can develop in the future. That would help to lift this scheme outside party politics and treat it as an Imperial economic conception. So long as it is run on the lines on which it is now only too clear it has


been run, no Opposition could possibly refrain from its first duty of criticising publicly the people responsible for such abuses. Above all, if this is to be a part- nership between the African and the European, it must be made clear beyond all doubt that we are in Tanganyika to stay, and that we intend to use the lessons of the last few years to the mutual profit of the Africans and ourselves.

4.3 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): My task today is to give the Committee an interim report. I welcome the opportunity to do so, but I should have preferred to have been in a position to give the Committee and the country—and not least the staff of the Corporation in the African front line, who matter enormously in this enterprise—a much more comprehensive long-term assessment of the future scope of this scheme. I cannot do that today. I have certain information to give to the Committee, but I must, at the outset, emphasise that it is purely interim, and purely of a tentative character.
Let me say at once, if only because I believe it to be necessary for us to get today's interim report in the right perspective, that what is needed now most of all is a clear-cut realistic modification of the long-term programme, based on a close estimate of the future scope and possibilities of this groundnut scheme. But I am not yet in a position to lay that plan before the Committee. I might have done so had I taken the view that everything else should be subordinated to speed. I could have spurred and goaded the officers of the Corporation to take rushed decisions, in order to have been able to say to the Committee today, "Here is the whole long-term scheme, revised, re-calculated and re-assessed." But I thought it would be imprudent to take that line.
As a matter of fact, the time chosen by the Opposition to debate this subject is not the ideal one. I say that without making any complaint. July is not a month in which we can really see how an agricultural scheme of this sort is going. A time after the harvest has been completed, when the current cropping year's results have been considered, would obviously have been better. But we have to face the situation today. After all, I

think it is generally recognised that many of the errors of judgment and policy which afflicted the early phases of this scheme, were due to proceeding for probably quite laudable motives at a breakneck speed. In so far as I am responsible for the administration of this scheme, I want the future of this great enterprise—it is a great enterprise and will remain so—to be firmly grounded in reality and based on the most stringent and scrupulous measurement of what it can be expected to achieve. I have therefore agreed with the Corporation that they should have adequate time in which to work out and re-cast their long-term plans. I do not want any of us who carry responsibility for this scheme to be driven into errors of judgment, merely because we have not had enough time for reflection and objective weighing of all the factors.
As it now looks, I think I can promise the Committee that the revised long-term plan will be ready by late October. I also hope that the Corporation's conclusions, and the Government's conclusions after that, on the basis of that plan, will be ready shortly after late October. In that event, it would be my hope to publish then a White Paper, of the modified long-term plan, and our respective conclusions, those of the Corporation and the Government, with all the relevant factual information, in late autumn. That would give the Committee time to examine them before any further Debate. Pending the receipt of these proposals, it would be very little use for me, or the Committee, to speculate in any detail as to their nature and scope. But it might be useful today for me to do two things on this general question. First, to give my own very general and tentative view of the ultimate future of this scheme, and in doing so I will reply to some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). Second, to set out for the information of the Committee the various questions and other considerations against which our long-term ideas are at this moment being actively prepared.
First, then, my own estimate. From my study of the situation since I took office, it is clear to me that this groundnut plan must go forward. To abandon it now, or even to retreat in any fundamental way, would be wholly wrong. But I am equally satisfied that ultimately, if it is to prosper and flourish, and bring security


and well-being both to the territory and to our own people, it must be fashioned and shaped as a broad project of colonial development with a wide and varied agriculturist content, rather than the purely food producing ideas on which it was first established. It was originally devised to produce essential fats to meet estimated world shortages.
Quite apart from the fact of whether or not those estimated shortages are as valid as they were, which is open to argument, it now seems clear to any realist that it would be unwise to focus the project exclusively on this original purpose of producing fats. That purpose, in the short run, of course, still remains. But, as it now appears to me, in the long run we must use the vast capital resources, the immense and painfully-gained experience of tropical agriculture, and all the huge accumulation of men, materials, lands, townships, and ideas, all that we call broadly the "groundnut scheme," as the machinery for an imaginative scheme of colonial development in its widest sense. Having given that as my own general estimate, let me now give the question we must now carefully consider before we finally settle the shape of our plan. Each year, experience has compelled changes and adjustments in the original conception, and there may well be significant revision this year. But before it can be made, certain questions must be answered.
Before the Board of the Corporation can complete their study certain requirements must be met. First, they will wish to have last year's accounts analysed in detail. It will still be a few weeks before the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1950, are in their final shape. The Board will wish to have these accounts analysed in detail so that they can base their financial plans on the right foundation. Second, they must have the detailed results of the current year's operations. As I have said, the harvest will not be completed until August and the actual results will need study by the scientists and the agricultural experts. Third, in the light of this year's experience, they will have to work out the cropping programme for next year. This cannot be done without detailed study. One thing which they will have to consider very carefully is the future of sunflower. In the light of two years' experience,

is it worth growing sunflower? This is a most important question. This is a problem which will need close study and it would be wrong to press for a hurried judgment.
Fourth, what is the best use which can be made of Kongwa? Here, the Board must wait for the results of the Kongwa inquiry which I shall mention later. About half of the cleared land which will be available for planting at the end of this year will be at Kongwa. Obviously the Corporation will have to wait until they have the advice of the experts before deciding the next year's progress there. These are questions which must be considered before we settle our long-term plan. Fifth, 20,000 acres of land are expected to be available in the Southern Province at the end of this year. Because the clearing has been done on a much more selective basis there, it will require a different form of organisation to run the agricultural operations there.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham) rose—

Mr. Webb: I would rather not be diverted. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I think all the points will be answered.
The Corporation are now studying how best this can be done. Sixth, the Corporation are now considering what other administrative reorganisation may be necessary. The decentralisation of the Kongwa headquarters and the concentration of the supplies and transport organisation and the new administrative layout in the Southern Province are already in hand, and other administrative problems are being most urgently considered. These decisions will vitally affect the costs of next year's operations. And finally, with the improvements in the accounts situation, it has been posible to put in hand some precise studies of the costs of the various agricultural operations. The outcome of these inquiries will enormously influence the future plans. I attach great importance to these matters. I think that they will prove the most useful ingredient in our efforts to get down to reality.
All these factors will have to be studied and weighed by the Board before bringing forward their recommendations for any changes in the long-term plan.


They must have the time to do a thorough job, and I do not see how they can be expected to complete it until the autumn. In the light of their study of these vital questions, they will make their recommendations to me and, as soon as I have made my decision, I will inform the Committee, and we shall know where we are. Until I have their full report, I am not going to indulge in any speculation as to the pace or scale of development in the years ahead. I recognise quite frankly that the original hopes which we had have not been realised and that we shall have to view the scheme in a new light. We must go forward more steadily, testing our methods carefully at each stage, on a task which will take very many years. And the time spent on planning will not be wasted. As I have said, the Committee will have ample time to study our conclusions on all these matters when they are ready. The White Paper will be available. I trust there will be general approval of my desire to take adequate time over our future plans.
Now, I want to give the Committee an interim report on what has been taking place recently. In doing so, I hope to cover most of the major questions raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. If I miss some of importance I will see that they are dealt with before the end of the Debate. In recent months, the Board have been concentrating on securing the degree of reconditioning—of the scheme's administration, particularly on the financial side—which it was clear was urgently needed. What have they managed to achieve? Their most important achievements have been in bringing the storekeeping and the accounting situation under control.
I must here warn the Committee that when the auditors' report on last year's accounts is published in the autumn, they may still find it necessary to give a qualified certificate. Every effort has been made to clean up those accounts—I speak of 1949-50—and I am sure that the auditors are appreciative of what has been done. But, of course, it remains for them to say whether they are fully satisfied, and, as I say, since I want to be quite frank on this matter, they may still not find it possible to give a completely clear bill—that is, on the 1949-50 accounts. But, so far as the accounts for the year beginning 1st April, 1950, are concerned,

the Board is satisfied, and I am satisfied, that firm foundations have been laid to produce sound accounts, and to secure adequate budgetary control, with systematic costings.
The Committee may like to know how this has been done. The person primarily responsible is Sir Eric Coates who, of course, was recently appointed Chairman. When the Board was reconstituted in December, 1949, the accounts for that year—1949–50—were still in an unsatisfactory condition, in particular as regards accounting in detail for the receipt and issue of stores. The accounts were still being maintained centrally in Dar-es-Salaam by a staff still inadequate in numbers and quality, and heavy arrears in store accounting had developed. It soon became evident that not only would very special measures be necessary to clear these arrears, but also that the whole system of accounting and of budgetary and financial control required overhaul. The first step required was greatly to augment the staff at all levels in order to cope with both these tasks, and immediate emergency action was taken to do so. The next step was to prepare a detailed appraisement of the nature and extent of the arrears and to begin a new system for dealing with them under close supervision. An immense effort was put into this task from January onwards and it is still continuing. Great progress has been made. The accounts for the year will he closed in August, and although they will doubtless not be perfect, they will show a pronounced improvement over those of the previous year.
Simultaneously, steps were taken to revise the financial and accounting systems. A decision was taken in January, 1950, to decentralise the accounts to the regions, with effect from 1st April, 1950. A new system of accounts linked with a budget and a full system of financial control were devised. The accounting staff was reorganised and sent to the regions before 1st April, ready to start the new system. Monthly accounts, under the new system, were coming forward on due dates with reasonable initial success and are being closely nursed to completeness and accuracy. The staff have responded well, and the outlook, I think, is encouraging.
A budget for 1950-51 was prepared on the basis of the real resources likely to


be available, and that budget was sanctioned by the Government in March, and the individual spending authorities in East Africa now know how much they have available to spend on each activity, and, from the new accounts, how much they are currently spending. These new systems, like all such new systems, will take time to reach full efficiency. They will be subjected to an exhaustive review, in consultation with the Corporation's auditors, in October. Equally drastic measures have been taken to improve the system and practice of storekeeping and stores control, and here again, on the evidence I have seen, steady progress is being achieved.
The effective way in which the accounts situation in East Africa has been reorganised is due principally to the splendid direction which Sir Eric Coates gave to the work, and I want to express my gratitude to him. His appointment as Chairman of the Corporation has left a vacancy on the Board. I am very pleased to be able to inform the Committee that Sir Cyril Jones has accepted my invitation to join the Board and to accept special responsibility for finance. I feel confident he will carry on the impressive work of his predecessor. May I explain that Sir Cyril has been Secretary to the Finance Department of the Government of Madras, and for eight years from 1939 was Secretary to the Finance Department of the Government of India. He made a high reputation as an administrator of great energy and ability, and he has since been engaged on German financial questions, and has recently been on special duties under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I have it in mind to appoint two other members to the Board, probably on a part-time basis, and these will be chosen particularly for their technical experience and ability in industry and commerce.
Continuing my interim report on what has happened recently, in addition to overhauling finance, the Board has made extensive changes in the general scheme of administration. Some of these are not yet complete, and others cannot be given their final form until we have made our decision in the autumn on the long-term plan; but I can give the Committee information of a number of changes which

I am satisfied have greatly strengthened the machinery, and, at the same time, made it much more flexible.
The direction of the work in East Africa has been concentrated under a single chief general manager—Mr. Raby. Arrangements are also in hand to bring the administration of the Kongwa and Urambo regions under the direction of one regional general manager. By early 1952, it is expected that there will be only the two regions—the Southern region and the joint Kongwa-Urambo region. These regions will then be directly responsible to the Board. This administrative change will mean that in clue course it will be possible to diminish the scope of the central organisation in East Africa.
Now a word about the concentration of our activities in East Africa. It was inevitable that, in the early days of the scheme, when accommodation and control were particularly difficult, the Corporation's activities were developed over a wide area. That, obviously, was inescapable. In order to secure more efficient administration and to reduce unnecessary overhead expenses, the Board have carried through a process of quite drastic concentration. They have decided, for instance, to close down the offices which had been established at Dar-es-Salaam, offices to deal with some aspects of stores and accounting work, and any work which was continuing has been transferred to the regions. They have also decided that the training centre at Ifunda, which was set up to train native craftsmen for work on the scheme, could be transferred to the local Government. This was done on 1st May of this year. In the Southern Province, the regional headquarters which had been set up at Lindi have been transferred entirely to Nachingwea. All these measures, and other local adjustments which have been made, are making the progress in East Africa as we now see it more efficient and, which is much more important, more economical.
As I say, this is an interim report, but I can assure the Committee that many more equally important changes are now in progress on which I am not in a position to report today.
Now I will say a word about the cash advances to the Overseas Food Corporation. As normally happens with any


large-scale development project, expenditure is heavier in the earlier years, when houses, buildings, communications and other capital works have to be constructed. Much of the capital work involved in this scheme has now been completed, and the Corporation are therefore emerging from this phase of heavy initial outlay, and this is reflected in their current rate of borrowing, which is approximately half what it was a year ago.
May I now turn to the experience of this year's harvest in East Africa, which is, of course, the touchstone of the whole picture? The Committee will want to know the results which have so far been obtained from this year's harvest in East Africa. The harvest is now in progress and is not yet complete, and final results may well modify the figures which I am now about to give.
But so far at Kongwa, 3,100 acres of groundnuts, out of a total of 9,500, have been harvested and the yield per acre is 214 lb. shelled; 32,000 acres of sunflower, out of a total of 56,000 acres, have been harvested and the yield is 90 lb. to the acre. A proportion of the smaller acreages sown to maize and sorghum has been harvested and the yields are 700 lb. and 780 lb. to the acre, respectively. At Urambo all the groundnuts, 2,700 acres, have been harvested and the yield is 540 lb. shelled to the acre. Nearly 8,000 acres of sunflower have been harvested and the yield is 140 lb. to the acre. More than half the maize has been harvested and the yield is 700 lb. to the acre. Only a relatively small acreage was sown in the Southern Province and the yield of groundnuts is 530 lb. shelled to the acre, and 400 lb. to the acre of sunflower.

Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury and Redcliffe): Will the right hon. Gentleman give the estimated figures?

Mr. Webb: We could give them later. I think they are well-known to the Committee, and there is no good reason for repeating them now. I am trying to give the exact figures, and I did not want to be diverted. The estimated figures are well-known, and we can give them later.
What conclusions are to be drawn from these figures? Obviously, the results are not as good as the Corporation expected, but, at both Urambo and the Southern Province, the groundnut yields are, I think, promising. At Urambo in the first

year, they secured a yield of only 114 lb. shelled to the acre, although it must be remembered that this was a year of drought, and in the Southern Province the yield was 410 lb. shelled to the acre. I would remind the Committee that the figures I have given are preliminary figures. When gleaning is finished at Urambo and in the Southern Province, the figures may be improved upon.
The biggest disappointment is the low yields of sunflower at both Kongwa and Urambo. Quite frankly, it looks as if the high hopes which the Corporation's advisers had about the possible use of sunflower as a rotation crop will not be realised. I would, however, deprecate any speculation about the future of sunflower until we have our long-term plan. But I must say that this comparative failure of the sunflower crop, and also the low yields at Kongwa, are disappointing. It is one of the reasons why I welcomed the decision of the Corporation to send out a working party to East Africa to give advice on the future long-term and short-term agricultural policy to be pursued at Kongwa. They have secured the services of a number of eminent experts to work under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Lockhart. The hon. Member opposite rather deprecated Sir Charles Lockhart. May I say that I have the utmost confidence in his judgment and objectivity, bearing in mind that the whole purpose of this working party is to concern itself with the future and not with the past.
The Committee may be interested to know who are the people around Sir Charles Lockhart. They are all people of competent technical experience. There is Mr. G. F. Clay, the Agricultural Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; Profesor S. H. Frankel, Professor of Colonial Economic Affairs at Nuffield College, Oxford; Dr. H. H. Storey, Deputy Director of the East African Agricultural Research Organisation; Mr. A. M. B. Hutt, Member for Development, Tanganyika Government; Mr. J. C. Muir, Member for Agriculture, Tanganyika Government, and Professor J. F. V. Phillips, Agricultural Adviser to the Corporation. They are people not likely to be led astray by such a wild man as Sir Charles Lockhart; they are people of competent technical judgment whose report I and the Board await with great interest and anxiety.
As can be seen from the membership of the working party, the inquiry is being carried out in the closest co-operation with the Colonial Office and the Tanganyika Government, to which I attach very great importance. The working party is now there and has, I believe, already commenced its duties. Its report is expected to be in the hands of the Corporation by about the middle of September, and the conclusion which the Board will reach on it will be vital for the whole future of the scheme. The suggestion was made that they might go further afield and look into the Southern Province and the Urambo region. I think that would delay matters, and I do not think it necessary. I would rather have the working party come back speedily from Kongwa, which is the heart of our problem, with such findings as it is possible to make so that we may have the report in front of us for the purpose of making our long-term plan.
I should like to give the Committee some details about the other two areas, Urambo and the Southern Province. At Urambo, work in 1950 started with a liability from the previous year when only 14,000 acres were cleared instead of the estimated 20,000. The plan was that by the end of 1950, 90,000 acres should be ready for agricultural use. This was the target announced during the Debate last November. But I am afraid it will not be achieved. Bush has now been felled on 65,000 acres, and the first piling of the timber is complete. But not all the 65,000 acres will be available for agricultural use. Some 13,000 acres may have to be used for soil conservation purposes, and there is a further area of some 8,000 acres which, because it is covered with anthills, will be difficult to prepare for agricultural use.
It is impossible as yet to assess how much of the 65,000 acres will be ready for planting by the end of the year, and the Corporation do not propose to continue any clearing work at Urambo after the end of the present season, that is, next November. They do not feel it worth while to keep a land-clearing organisation in Urambo for part of the next season in order to complete 90,000 acres. They have already decided that it is preferable to concentrate on the Southern Province, and I must say I entirely agree with their decision.
In the Southern Province—continuing my interim report—we hope to achieve the target of clearing 20,000 acres by the end of 1950. Bush has been flattened on 24,000 acres. Piling is well advanced, and the subsequent operations have been begun. But the method of land clearing is rather different from that in Kongwa. The land in the Southern Province is undulating, and the soils vary considerably from one acre to the next. Instead of clearing all land, as was done at Kongwa, only those areas are being cleared which will be particularly suitable for agriculture. The resulting areas are scattered through the bush, and, as I have mentioned, will ultimately call for a different form of agricultural administration.
The clearing target in the Southern Province for 1951 was 100,000 acres. The Corporation have decided to revise this target after a close review of the resources likely to be available to maintain the land-clearing effort. They found it was possible to build up the necessary bases to support only two fully found land-clearing teams of 100 tractors each, as against the three which would have been required. The Board made the deliberate decision that it would have been unwise to strain these resources beyond reasonable limits in an effort to reach a bigger target. This is not the only instance of realistic planning on the part of the Board, and I welcome this sound approach. They are surely wise to plan their activities carefully within the limits of their resources, even if this means a reduction in their targets.
I had proposed to say a word about Queensland, but since that has not been raised, I will put it on one side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Very well, I will say a word about Queensland. As the Committee well know, Queensland is the Overseas Food Corporation's subsidiary concern, and there, I think, we have some success to report. They succeeded in reaching their target of 70,000 acres under crop in their second year—66,500 acres under sorghum and 3,500 acres under sunflower. That harvest is now in full swing. About half the sorghum has been harvested and has produced 20,000 tons, the yield being about 1,460 lb. to the acre. This, of course, is a much better yield than last year. Most of the crop will be shipped to the United Kingdom, and it will make a modest, but I think,


as Minister of Food, a very welcome, contribution to our supplies of animal feedingstuffs.
Progress is being made in the development of the pig-rearing side of the scheme. One pig unit is already set up and a second is nearing completion. Each unit consists of 200 breeding sows, and the anticipated production is 12 baconers of eight score deadweight per annum. Already there are nearly 1,300 pigs in the units. The baconers will be sold for export to Britain.
A development which was not anticipated in the original plan has been the move into livestock production in Queensland. Some of the land which was included in the estates purchased by the Corporation is not suitable for sorghum cultivation, but it is useful for grazing. In addition, the sorghum stubble offers a useful source of cattle feed at a time when natural grazing has fallen off, and this has enabled the Corporation to purchase numbers of mixed store cattle at a satisfactory price at a time when breeders have little keep. The cattle can be carried through the winter on the stubble, and finished on the new grass in the spring. This year, because of the large quantity of lodged grain, cattle were very quickly fattened on the stubble. Last season 13,000 cattle were purchased and grazed in this way, of which nearly 3,000 were sold. This development offers the prospect of increasing the supplies of meat to this country, and its future development is being watched with confidence.
Before I conclude, may I say a word about the Report of the Public Accounts Committee? Its report, in my view, was a balanced and understanding one. There can be no complaint about the nature of the Committee's criticisms, which, in accordance with its duty, it felt it proper to make. But, as the inquiry was concerned with the earlier phases of the Corporation's work, I do not think there is anything to be gained by my now going over the Report's findings in detail. I have shown that the Board has striven hard to put its finances in order, and I am fully confident that later scrutiny by the Committee will result in our current accounts being passed with little or no complaint.
There is one further point which I desire to report before I conclude. I realise that this groundnut scheme is one in which

there is a most unusual degree of public interest. I have therefore been anxious that, in so far as it is possible, those in charge of the scheme should meet their obligations under the requirements of public accountability. The most obvious way, of course, to do this is to provide as much information as possible, whether it be good or bad, of the way things are going. I have suggested to the new Chairman, and he has readily agreed to my request, that the Board should regularly publish the clearing, acreage and yield figures to the House and to the country. A start has already been made. Last week, the Board issued the latest facts at its disposal about the harvest; and it is hoped to follow this up with regular information on the general aspects of the Corporation's progress, so that the House, the Press and the public, may be kept fully informed as to the way things are going.
So I conclude, as I began, by stressing the future of this great enterprise, rather than its past. I trust the Committee today, whilst doing its duty in weighing past errors, will try to take a creative, forward-looking view. This scheme has had more public scrutiny than most human institutions and its officers have not been helped, I think, to put it mildly, by the degree of political feeling which has surged constantly around their work. I want to send out to the officers in the front line in East Africa from this Committee—I hope with the united co-operation of all parties—a message of goodwill and confidence in their work and of gratitude for all they are doing. It is surely common ground that this venture should go forward. It is a great example of the questing, pioneering spirit of our race. Its early days have been clouded by frustration and grievous disappointment. Only in the end will it be possible to attribute blame and distribute praise in the right proportions. My concern—and I believe it should be that of the whole Committee—is to look to the past only in so far as it is necessary to learn from experience the answer to our future problems.
Many acute and intractable problems still await solution. But we shall solve them without doubt. Here is a project, whatever its ultimate advantages in food for these islands, with immense possibilities for good for the great native


millions of Africa. What we are surely doing out there is not merely clearing a way to new sources of natural wealth, not just that, but something which is much more important, something on which we may finally be judged—we are surely beating down the tropical bush to bring the dignity and well-being of a new civilisation to the peoples whose interests we hold in trust in the African territories.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: We have listened closely to the Minister's interim report. He has spoken in clear terms that we all understand, and we are indeed grateful to him because, in the past, in our groundnut Debates sometimes words have had two meanings, and it has not always been quite clear to the Opposition what was really in the Minister's mind and what the facts were. The Minister has our sympathy in having inherited political responsibility for a scheme which was conceived in haste as a rapid margarine-producing project and for which, on political grounds, an impossible pace was set.
We know, now, how mistaken it was to believe that the tractors and the equipment and the men and the materials could be gathered in time to meet the early forecasted targets. The programme that the former Minister set himself, and this Committee accepted much too lightly, allowed no time for proper surveys of the soil, and proper assessments of the rainfall or the supplies of underground water. Indeed, when my plane circled over Kongwa in March, 1948, and I looked down and saw that red, stark naked, cleared landscape and the further traces cut through the bush I thought, "Whatever I do in these five days, I must try to discover why it was that the Africans and the Germans, who did settle parts of Tanganyika very closely, left this Kongwa plain so severely alone." Well, we have discovered some of these reasons at a cost of £35 million.
In previous groundnut Debates I tried to give the House my conclusions but they were, of course, rejected with disdain by the former Minister of Food. Expansion at all costs was the order of the day, and that has continued until now. Because the new Minister, for the first time, has

given us a more realistic and practical assessment of what has been done so far, and how he thinks the scheme can best go ahead, we welcome the speech he made today. I think the country will welcome it, too.
There are other problems beyond those the Minister has touched upon. I hope he will carry them very much in mind in the next few months, while the future of this scheme is being decided. One major problem is surely the size of the project and the risk and disabilities of distant control from London. Those two problems did not dismay the former Minister. I hope the Minister will look at them, with the Board, very closely and critically because, in my view, they are vital to the future success of this scheme as a land development project.
Of course, the former Minister resented any hint that his old political friend, Mr. Plummer, might not be the most suitable man to have charge of a scheme with a blank cheque of £50 million that Parliament presented under the Overseas Resources Development Act; and the scheme swelled vastly with order and counter-order. No proper control was exercised in Tanganyika, where it ought to have been exercised, or in London. Now we have to learn from this bitter and frustrating experience.
If it is to serve a useful purpose, this Debate must show the Government plainly that Parliament is not willing to allow money to be put in at a rate which has been at £1 million a month, and which the Minister now says will be at half that rate, without anyone having any clear idea of the objective. We must discard, once and for all, the original idea of a mechanised scheme to grow groundnuts on three million, two million or even 600,000 acres. We have to take into account the disappointment in the cropping we have experienced, even since last November when we had this revised estimate of 600,000 acres. There have been disappointments at all three centres, Kongwa, Urambo and the Southern Province, as the Minister has told us this afternoon. The harvest tally of groundnuts is very poor. We remember the optimistic figures given in the Wakefield Report which have always been in the mind of the House—750 lb. an acre of shelled nuts. We have dropped very far


below that in the figures which have so far been recorded.
This has not been a drought year. There have been quite adequate rains. I do not say that they have been timely rains, but they have been adequate and I do not think we must expect any greater rainfall, on an average of 10 years, in the Kongwa Plain than we have had this season. It makes it most necessary to take all the sound advice we can as to the best way of using this Kongwa Plain, which has disappointed us for groundnuts and sunflowers and which has not given us too good results with other crops. We must resist the easy idea of just carrying on hoping for the best. I am quite sure that we need a new assessment of the whole project.
Circumstances favour us. We have a new Minister and he is not compromised, as was his predecessor. I always felt that the real trouble with the former Minister of Food was that to him the groundnut scheme was like a mistress; she was always looking at her best and he would never hear any criticism of any kind about her or her behaviour. The present Minister has not that obsession. I do not suppose he would mind passing this darling on to the Colonial Office, and, through the Colonial Office, perhaps to the Tanganyika Government, to salvage what can be salvaged out of Kongwa, and try to make a success of it as a land development scheme.
There are problems, and major problems, which have to be faced in the Southern Province, which was always painted to us as the land of promise. The first clearings which have been made, as the Minister told us, have been selective clearings and if hon. Members look at a map of that area, marked with the patches which have been cleared, they will see that it is speckled; that is to say, we get a block of land here and it is another five miles before we find another block; and another 10 or 15 miles before we find a further block. That raises a very serious practical problem in mechanised farming. There will be a terrible amount of dead running for tractors and lorries and every other kind of equipment in the land likely to be suitable for cropping in the area which the Corporation now hold.
It may well be best—and I suggest that the Minister should keep this in mind—

to determine, in the Southern Province that the right answer is to clear the land through the agency of the Corporation and then lease it to settlers for them to farm in the way they think best, against their own pockets and their own bank balances. It is bound to be in smaller units than the Corporation have so far contemplated as being economic for their organisation. It may be possible, too, to raise cattle in the Southern Province. That is another project which needs to be looked at very closely.
What uses are to be made of Kongwa? As the Minister said this afternoon, that is the heart of the problem. Kongwa is largely a red, sandy desert. It has some grey soil which is quite good. It has some very acid soil which is no good for growing anything at all. It has a chancy rainfall. The figures given in earlier Debates in this Committee about the rain which falls at the Kongwa hill mission station are now admitted, in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, to bear no relation to the rainfall in the Kongwa Plain.
We have to accept the fact that rainfall there is very uncertain indeed, and we have not yet had any clear evidence that there is adequate underground water to be obtained from bore holes. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is to reply, will be able to tell us that they have an adequate water supply for human beings and for cattle at Kongwa. That must be a major factor in deciding what use we can make of Kongwa. We cannot grow groundnuts and sunflowers. Is it possible, by grassing the land, to run cattle ranches in conjunction with mixed farming? That appears to me to be the most likely system if there is adequate water.
At Urambo, where the soil is rather better, the trouble is that the ground slopes a good deal and there has been serious wash of the surface soil. It is not clear how mechanisation can be economically applied there. If we have to grow crops on ridges to stop the wash-away on the top soil, we destroy the hope of economy through mechanised production of groundnuts, sunflowers or any other crops.
Who is to resolve these problems? They are vitally important for this House, which has to find the money, and they are vitally important to the taxpayers and


the public of this country. The Overseas Food Corporation have set up a working party for Kongwa under Sir Charles Lockhart, who is a member of the Board. I do not doubt the qualifications of those serving on the working party, but I must say that the limited terms of reference and the fact that the chairman of the working party is a member of the Overseas Food Corporation Board gave me the impression that this is just a kind of make-do-and-mend party. I believe, personally, that the country wants more impartial and higher level advice than it will receive from a working party set up by the Board itself. The Overseas Food Corporation and the Ministry of Food have between them made so many mistakes about this scheme that they have forfeited the confidence of the public here and of the men in Tanganyika.
I was glad to hear from friends of mine who are working on the scheme that the changes which have been made in the Board's membership, and, in particular, the appointment of Sir Eric Coates as chairman, have had an excellent effect on the spirit of the men in Tanganyika and on that of their wives. Indeed, I may say that from all sides of the Committee we wish Sir Eric Coates all success in the task he has undertaken. He is to have an additional member of the Board, making five all told, if I am right, and the Minister mentioned that he was considering appointing more part-time members. He said he would select men with experience of industry and commerce. I hope that the Minister has not forgotten that this is to be an agricultural project. He should try to strengthen the Board with one or two members who have had the experience of making their living by the land and by farming. A good many of the mistakes which have been made in the last three years would have been avoided if that kind of experience had been present round the Board table.
It is my view that the country will require, and that Parliament should require, a higher powered inquiry about the future than we are likely to get in this Kongwa working party under Sir Charles Lockhart's chairmanship. I think we need the advice of men who are respected not only in this country but throughout the British Empire. This is a great Empire project, and I would venture to suggest some

names to the Minister of men who, I believe, would make a sound contribution to the solution of this whole problem if they were appointed to sit on a Royal Commission.
I should like to see Sir William Ogg, Director of the Rothamsted Experimental Station appointed; he has done soil research work earlier in his career in East Africa. I should like to see men like Professor S. M. Wadham, of Melbourne University, who was responsible for an excellent report on land use in Australia. After all, we have to face in Tanganyika just the same kind of problems as those which they have been facing and trying to resolve in Australia. Another name I would mention is that of Sir William Gavin, Chief Agricultural Adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture here during the war, who has long experience with Imperial Chemical Industries. Another name is that of Professor Sanders, of Reading and, of course, Mr. Clay from the Colonial Agricultural Service, who, I am glad to see, has been appointed as a member of the working party which is now out at Kongwa.
I would not hesitate, either, to ask advice again of Mr. David Martin, who was the general manager of the scheme when the United Africa Company wore in charge of it at first for the Minister of Food. He saw all the early strivings; he knows what mistakes were made and why those mistakes were made, and. I believe that his experience would be of great value. I would add some local experience by inviting a leading Kenya farmer to give his advice, particularly on the cattle side. In my view, the best hope for Kongwa is to get mixed farming, with cattle ranching as part of the scheme, and that we need to have all the best local advice we can get. For chairman, the name which springs to my mind is that of Lord Bruce of Melbourne; I do not think we could have anybody better, but he might not be prepared to undertake the task. Alternatively, there is Lord De La Warr, who has shown a keen and dispassionate interest in the success of this project. I believe that the Minister could get together a team who would command the respect of the country as a whole, and whose advice we could follow, feeling that it was quite impartial, and inspired, not by political considerations but by a desire to bring success out


of the bitter and costly experience that we have had so far.
This committee ought to give a warning to the Minister of Food tonight that we want to see a limit set to further expenditure in Tanganyika, even while he is making up his mind what to do. We should like to feel that not more than another £2 million, bringing the total bill up to £38 million, will be spent before we hear again from the Minister of a definite plan, after all these inquiries have been made, of how he means to proceed. I would feel happier, and I believe the taxpayers would feel happier—every man, woman and child in the country has 14s. 5d. invested in this scheme today—if we draw on the best possible advice, through a more widely drawn commission than the working party which the Minister and the Corporation are relying on today.
Finally, as a farmer in this country, I wish all success to the pioneers out in Tanganyika. They have had a grim job. Politicians have not always helped them, I know, but that fault is not all on one side of the House. If there has been misrepresentation, who started it? We want to clear this scheme of party politics, and that is why I welcome the Minister's speech this afternoon. I think he means to do that. We want to salvage what good we can from it for the men on the spot, for our own food supplies, and for the Africans in Tanganyika. I still believe that we can succeed. It will not be a margarine scheme; it will not be a groundnut scheme; but it can be a land development scheme which will redound eventually, after all our disappointments. to our credit, and particularly to the credit of those who have worked so hard and endured so much in Tanganyika.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I was staying with my brother in Kenya about August or September of last year. He is a farmer there, and he suggested that he and I might fly down to see the groundnut scheme in Kongwa. Through the kindness of the Food Corporation office in Nairobi, we were able, at our own expense, to go down to Kongwa. I want to make it perfectly clear that I went there with my brother at our own expense, and not at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. I should like to

try, if I can, to give the Committee some picture of what it is like at Kongwa.
I wonder how many hon. Members have any idea what 100,000 acres look like, because unless one has some picture in one's mind of 100,000 acres there is no point in thinking about two million acres, or 600,000 acres. My guess is that 100,000 acres—which is about what was cleared at Kongwa this time last year—is about as far as can be seen from an aircraft at 3,000 feet looking over level ground. I am not talking about on the mountain side, but on the level ground. It is a tremendous area. When this scheme was started, as hon. Members probably know from what they have read or have seen if they have been there, all that land was covered by bush. At the time of year I was there the dirty grey bush was about 15 to 20 feet high. All that had to he cleared before any work, planting or sowing could take place.
At Kongwa, all that bush had been cleared, and although the Minister—on whose speech I should like to congratulate him as being one of very great interest from someone who obviously knows what he is about—may say that 90,000 acres were planted, it is most important to bear in mind that a great many of those acres were used for roads alone. True, they are rather bad roads, but, as hon. Members who have seen them will know, they run perfectly straight for 30 or 40 miles. They are not particularly good roads, and it is amazing to me that the various English cars they have out there stand up as long as they do to the surface of those roads, which are very badly pot-holed.
All that bush had first to be cleared, and the East Africa Company were very badly served with machinery for clearing. I understand there was a good deal of unexpected abrasive in the soil which wore down the circular ploughshares much quicker than was expected, or than has happened anywhere else. I do not know how long it takes before the ordinary circular ploughshares, which are 18 or 24 inches in diameter, become too small to be of any use, but they were worn away much quicker than was anticipated.
Then, as hon. Members will realise, although the ground at Kongwa is fairly flat, there had to be contouring. Perhaps I might try to explain that by using as an illustration the curtain which is in use


at the Plaza Cinema, which no doubt everybody will have seen, and which is hung down over the screen before the performance starts. There are at Kongwa these curious terraces right across the soil in order to prevent soil erosion, because even though they do not get very much rain there, when it does come, round about the winter months, there is a tendency for the top soil to be washed away and for the soil left behind to be of no use whatsoever.
Therefore, this area of 90,000 to 100,000 acres had to be contoured, which in itself was a big job. They had to bank up to a height of four or five feet some of the rubble from the burnt bush to make these barriers, terraces, or ridges, to prevent erosion of the top soil. Having done that, it was necessary to wait until the rains had come at least once in order to soften the soil; otherwise, the soil was so hard that planting was impossible. The first rain is usually expected about November. Then, as soon as the soil is sufficiently softened, planting takes place, and they then have to wait until the rain comes again to fertilise the seeds.
In the two years before my visit there had undoubtedly been unprecedented droughts. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) referred to the Kongwa meteorological station as being rather unreliable. When I was there I was told that the only person who had any recollection of the weather in the Kongwa was an old missionary. He said that the two winters preceding my visit were the period of the worst drought that he could remember in the 50 years or so he had lived in that area. I dare say that there were no meteorological records apart from his recollection. At least so far as the first two years were concerned the Food Corporation and the men on the spot were faced with really bad luck.
The hon. Member for Newbury said something to the effect that we could not afford another £2 million. I hope�ž—

Mr. Hurd: I said that we should set a limit of another £2 million to our expenditure until the Minister had had an opportunity of making a statement.

Mr. Bowles: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's observation. In a general kind of way these imaginative schemes must not be

regarded as bringing forth returns in the first few years of their existence. I should very much doubt whether the Canadian Pacific Railway paid a dividend for years and years.

Mr. Follick: It did not do so before the war.

Mr. Bowles: The point I am trying to make that the great schemes which develop unknown country such as Canada was, and such as this part of Tanganyika is, cannot be expected to make a return within a number of years. A fair-minded man would say, "Do not worry too much about the expenditure so long as the organisation is proceeding along the right lines and is likely, in the end, to lead to the solution of our great troubles."
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said that the food situation is now so much better, that the motives behind the actions of the Minister of Food in those days were not really sufficiently impelling to justify his pessimism about the feeding of the population. While I was in Kenya I read in "The Times" a leading article in which it was said either that every two seconds there were three more mouths to fill or that every three seconds there were two more mouths to fill. There is a great difference between those figures, but the increasing number of mouths every two or three seconds is a factor to bear in mind.
I congratulate the Government, and the Corporation in particular, on their courage in embarking upon this scheme in the big and broad way they did. I would like to pay a special compliment to the inventiveness and ingenuity of the engineers on the spot. I remember having pointed out to me a large number of cylinder heads which had cracked because African drivers had allowed the radiators of their vehicles to boil dry in the middle of this bush so that the engines were really suffocated and the cylinders were not kept cool. These men, particularly those in the heavy repair section, could not wait until new cylinders could be sent from London. They were, therefore, experimenting with ways of repairing cracks in cylinder heads.
I gathered that welding is not quite a satisfactory process. Hon. Members who have been to Kongwa—I am sure the hon. Member for Newbury is one of them


—must have been impressed by the real proof there of the old saying that necessity is the mother of invention. As I say, the engineers on the spot were experimenting with ways of repairing cracks in cylinder heads in order to be able to get on with the job, as they could not wait for new engines and cylinders to be sent from this country.
They were working under great difficulties. When I was there—I was there for less than a week—one knew that a car was moving along five or six miles away by dust rising into the air to a height of 200 or 300 feet. When I was there in August and September, it was swelteringly hot. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind what it is like living in that really tropical country in conditions in which a motor car raises dust in the way I have described, and where there is dust on everything. The soil itself varies between one length of five miles and the next five miles and I imagine that those variations increase the difficulty so far as planning and agriculture generally are concerned.
The hon. Member for Newbury mentioned the question of water. I remember how pleased they were to get some water, for which they had to dig down nearly 300 feet. When I was there one only had about two inches of water at the bottom of a basin in which to wash oneself. I was staying in what is called "Park Lane," which consists of about five or seven houses which really are houses. The rest of the people working on the estate live and work under canvas. The various officers and departmental heads whom I saw were working under canvas just as if they were taking part in the Abyssinian War. It reminded my brother, who took part in that war, of that kind of military operation.
I want hon. Members to realise the extreme heat and the great effort and enthusiasm required to work there at all, the great knowledge and inventiveness which those on the spot have shown, and to visualise the dust that seemed to be so prevalent. I do not know whether there was any anxiety at that time about silicosis; perhaps it is a matter which the medical people had in mind. This venture can quite properly be described as a colonial development scheme. I do not recollect the number of African natives who are working for the Food Corporation now but there are schools for

the native children and hospitals. I went to the hospital in Kongwa. The natives had been provided with concrete bases for some of their tents when I was there, and the various food kitchens, or whatever they are called, had concrete bases.
The Food Corporation has spent a great deal of money, apart from clearing the sites, sowing groundnuts and sunflower seed and then reaping the crops. A great deal of money has been spent in what might be described as social amenities. Members who desire to connect in their minds the production of food together with the development of this undeveloped part of Africa would do well to bear in mind that a great deal of the money spent has been devoted to developing social services for the Africans.
When I was there there was doubt as to whether rain was coming. One could see clouds going over in the afternoon and evening but it never rained while I was there. It rained a little in November and, I think, in December and January. The hon. Member asked why we should not get some Kenya farmers to help. In Kenya, if they do not get two or three inches of rain every afternoon they become worried or appear to become worried. If the hon. Member knows anything about rainfall in Kenya, he will know that the farmer there looks forward to inches of rain every day.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North): Is the hon. Member aware that most farmers in Kenya often go as long as two months without rain, so how can they become worried if they do not see rain every afternoon?

Mr. Bowles: I have had the honour of passing the hon. Member's farm in Kenya and I could hardly use the roads because they were so slushy after about two or three inches of rain. It may have been the rainy season at about the time I was there but, nevertheless, Kenya gets a tremendous amount more rain, especially on the hills where the hon. Member has his farm, than is the case in the two or three weeks of rainy weather in the year in Kongwa. Whether Kenya farmers could help or not I do not know. I cannot express an opinion of any value on farming.
What I would emphasise to the Committee is this: let us pat on the back the


men and women on the spot. I add the women because many of the men's wives are working out there, and there are women secretaries, and so on; and they are living and working under canvas. I congratulate the Government and the Overseas Food Corporation for the imagination of the scheme. I cannot be critical because I do not know enough about it, but I admire the spirit of its Colonial aspect. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he has further time to examine the whole scheme, will come forward boldly, as I am sure he will, with plans which will make his predecessor's conception into a brilliant reality.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Wade: I heard an hon. Member interject a remark just now about the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I think the remark was to the effect that no dividend was paid prior to the war. I am sure that that is not so. For many years before the war the Canadian Pacific Railway paid a dividend.
This is not a time for recrimination, as I think we all agree. However, there are one or two lessons to be learned. I think it is clear that too much has been attempted too quickly, and that it would have been better if private enterprise methods had been followed in this groundnut scheme. It is not unnatural that critics—I am not referring to speakers in this Debate today—should point out how differently this would have been attempted by an independent concern with the profit motive at the back of its mind.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Member aware that Mr. Faure of the United Africa Company, in his evidence before the Committee, said it would not have made one iota of difference even if they had been working for the profit of a private company?

Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) aware that if he had adopted that policy, he would have soon ended in the bankruptcy court?

Mr. boy: I was only reminding the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) of what was said before the Committee.

Mr. Osborne: He would not have continued that policy.

Mr. Wade: My point is that criticisms have been made—and, I think, quite rightly made—that an independent concern, which had regard to the need for making the project pay, would have adopted a slower method of trial and error and experimentation; and I think that that is a fair criticism. One of the lessons we have had to learn is that too much has been attempted too quickly. We cannot, however, follow that simile too far, because no one here suggests that the prime object of this development should be the satisfaction of the profit motive.
That leads me to the second point which I wish to make. I think we have been wrong in the past in the motive. I believe that the motive has been political. I am not speaking now of those out there who have done an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. I am speaking of those at a higher level. I believe that the motive has been political—a desire to produce something grandiose in a short time. So, I believe we have been wrong.
I believe there are two right motives. One is the desire to alleviate the world food shortage—and I am more concerned with the world situation as regards food than our own, which is definitely improving; but even the world situation is better than it was, and there is not the same need for a large scheme such as this for the purpose of producing fats. The other right motive is colonial development—the interests of the colonial peoples; and that is what I wish to stress.
This working party may do very good service. Its report may be of value. I doubt, however, whether, as several hon. Members have pointed out, its terms of reference are wide enough to include the whole question of the colonial peoples. I think it would have been much better if the inquiry, which has been demanded in previous Debates, had been carried out. I would quote on this matter some words of Mr. Wilfrid Roberts, who then was Member for North Cumberland, in the Debate in the House last year.
What I fear may happen"—
he said—
I hope it will not—is that the Minister, who has made this his very personal enterprise, will obstinately refuse to accept any advice or criticism, will carry on with his plan with the


personnel he has appointed, and that in another six months' or a year's time the position will be disastrous. That would gravely affect the political career of the Minister"—
I do not know whether that forecast is correct, yet—
but, what is much more serious, it would be a disaster for the whole idea of this mechanised development of food production in Africa. I hope that the Minister will not be so obstinate as to refuse this inquiry. I cannot see what harm could he done by such an inquiry; on the other hand, it could do an infinite amount of good."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 79.]
I still think there is a case for an inquiry, but with a larger scope.
The other point is this: it has been suggested that the time has arrived when the Overseas Food Corporation should be merged in the Colonial Development Corporation. It is clearly becoming more and more—and I come back to my original point—a matter of colonial development, and I hope that whatever is done, whether that suggestion is carried out or not, the main theme and the main motive will be, in the words of the Minister, "Colonial development in its widest sense."

5.27 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think we all agree with one thing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, and that is that if this Debate—and the speech of the Minister in particular—has shown anything it is that it is time that the Ministry of Food gave up responsibility for this project, and that it should be returned to the Colonial Office.
I myself have never been quite able to understand what prompted the Government to allocate the duties of the Overseas Food Corporation, in the first instance, to the Ministry of Food, because from the very nature of the initial reports it was clear that the problems, if we were to make one of these schemes a success, would be chiefly matters in which the Colonial Office would have far more experience than the Ministry of Food. The Ministry of Food was, naturally, responsible for looking after internal feeding and the purchase of foodstuffs; but when it came to any of these problems of tropical agriculture, mechanised agriculture, and so on, surely it would have been wise, in the first instance, to have let those people who knew how such schemes should be undertaken take them over; and those

people were obviously the Colonial Office, and not the Ministry of Food.
There is a point I would take up in the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). I think we want to be careful not to overdo the question of providing social services for the Africans. I quite agree that it is something of which to be proud, but let us remember that at the moment there are only 30,000 Africans employed; and we do not want to play this up as though, in the groundnut scheme, we are doing something that will solve, on a large scale and in a very wide way, the whole of the social problems in East Africa. It is something useful; but it is something on a limited scale; and while we all appreciate it, and want to acknowledge its use, do not let us make too much out of it, for that may, perhaps, upset our judgment.
Before I come to the groundnut scheme, may I also pay my tribute to what has been done in Queensland, and say how glad we are on this side of the Committee to have the report of the excellent progress in Queensland? We do hope that in October the Minister will be able to give us ever better news on that score.
When we come to consider what the Minister said, he has, in fact, only told us that, once again, there is delay, that once again, there is a pause for consideration, and that, once again, the working parties are to go out there and reports are to be made. The unfortunate people on the spot are again faced with the knowledge that instead of having a settled plan they are to wait for some months before they are to have something upon which they can firmly establish their efforts.
I suppose that there never has been a scheme of such a large nature which has changed so often in so short a time. I do not suppose that there is anything like it in which order has followed order: one moment it is go ahead here and the next go ahead there, do this and do that; never has anyone been given a fair chance to do anything at all. I think that it is very unfortunate that, once again, all the Minister could tell us was that this is a tentative Report, something to be taken as an interim consideration, and all subject to revision in a few months time.
Let us remember, too, that he has told us that the whole of the cropping programme is to be subject to review, and he


has told us, in the same breath, that he has established a realistic budget. How can a new budget be realistic unless we know what the cropping programme is for the coming year? We are told that in 1950–51 so much money is to be allocated for each area and so much for each purpose. How can that money be properly spent or allocated if people have no idea what is to be the cropping policy of the Corporation in that year and in the coming year? It does not seem to me to make sense at all.
If we are to have this great change in the cropping programme and in the whole outlook, are pilot schemes to be carried out this time before a great area is allocated and a great scheme is undertaken without proper thought? We have been told consistently that it was because of speed and urgency that the Government were never able to carry out pilot schemes. What has never been told by the Minister is that the Ministry experts themselves said that no scheme of this nature could be carried out unless pilot schemes were first started. That was their own experts' evidence. I would like to know why the Ministry overrode their own experts and did not allow this to happen, and, above all, why they only took tests, on which they founded so much of their forecast, from plots of land on the foothills at Kongwa, when they must have known that once one gets three or four miles away from the hills there is entirely different rainfall and entirely different conditions?
Apparently, they took samples of one or two small native plots on the sides of hills, and said, "This is what we are going to base our estimates on." I think that shows lack of preparation, and I hope that this time, when we have this chance of re-organisation of the cropping programme, we shall get proper test experiments done for each crop that it is proposed to grow in the future, and that not until these experiments have shown their worth will a further large-scale plan be undertaken.
Now we come to the question of stores. I still feel very doubtful about what types of stores are being used out there. I felt it even more from what the Minister said today. He started by assuming that he could have three teams of tractors in the southern region and now finds that he

can only have two. Is this another admission that the types of stores which they have got there are not the correct ones; that the machinery, a great deal bought second-hand, is still constantly breaking down, and that they still have not sufficient spares, and all that sort of thing? There is nothing more heartbreaking for people working on a scheme than to know that they are given tools which will not meet the requirements of the job. Until that major matter is settled, I think there is little hope of being able to get this scheme going. After all, we have seen a situation where the initial lot of stores bought resulted in over 90 per cent. of the tractors breaking down in six months, and, from what the Minister said, it is apparent that quite a number of tractors are still breaking down in exactly the same way.
I would like to know a little more about the accounting system. The Minister indicated that possibly the accountants would have to qualify again their signature of the accounts for the last financial year. Evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee suggested that the figure of 57 Europeans and 115 non-Europeans was looked upon as being a satisfactory staff. From what the Minister said today, he now seems satisfied that even that figure is not large enough. Perhaps he would tell us what is the new target and how many, both Europeans and non-Europeans, have been recruited and are actually on the job.
Again, I think that it is most unsatisfactory that in the space of two years four different accounting systems have been used. Under the managing agency they were centralised. Directly the Overseas Food Corporation came into action they were decentralised. Six or seven months later they were centralised again, and now they are decentralised. That is four changes, each of which means a great deal of work and disturbance, and obviously a feeling, if one may say so, among the people there that their masters do not know what they are doing and, every time the bell strikes, change their minds and introduce something else. I feel that this comes very much into consideration when making a budget. It is no good talking about a budget being realistic until the accountancy on the spot is realistic, too. We have no evidence to show that the accountancy system out


there is now sufficiently able to deal with this question.
Up to the present, we have spent £35 million on this groundnut scheme. I would like to hear a statement from the Government as to how much of that is to be written off. How much is lost and gone for ever? It is obvious from what the Minister said that Kongwa is now to be looked on, if not as a failure, as something the whole of the activities of which have to be re-orientated and, possibly, a lot of it abandoned. The same is true of a great deal of the activities taking place at Urambo, and, obviously, of that capital expenditure of £35 million a great deal will not now show any practical return. I think that it would be for the benefit of everyone in the Committee and in the country if this nominal capital was whittled down to something realistic, so that people could know what were the real assets on which to build for the future.
I want to ask one or two questions about the figures given for production. The Minister said that in Kongwa it was estimated that we would get 214 lbs. of shelled nuts per acre, 500 lbs. in Urambo and 530 lbs. in the Southern Provinces. I hope that he will realise that the estimate in the Wakefield Report was 750 lbs. Even this last year it is only 66 per cent. of the original target of the Wakefield Report. I would like to hear something from the Minister as to whether the increase, over the previous year, which we are all glad to see, is likely to be continued in the coming year, or whether he feels that he has now reached the maximum that can be achieved in these areas. If he has, he has now to be contented, so far as groundnuts are concerned, with only two-thirds of what the Wakefield Report estimated to be the cropping value of the land, and it is again, I think, evident to everyone here that the amount of money required will consequently be much greater, or, alternatively, that the return on the money spent will be much less than we had all hoped.
I should also like to know what is the final verdict about sunflowers, particularly at Kongwa. I was not at all clear about that from the Minister's speech. If it has been decided that sunflowers are not be part of the Kongwa experiment, I hope the Minister realises that this means that, once again, the

whole plan is being upset. There was to be a 10-year rotation plan, under which eight of the 10 years were to be used for growing crops and four of those eight years for growing sunflowers. If sunflowers are now to be taken away, then, once again, these unfortunate people on the spot will not know what they have to perform.
We believe that there has never been such a case, in which so many mistakes have been made so quickly and with such monotonous ignorance of the facts and a refusal to admit them. I wish that the Minister had dwelt a little more on that, instead of concentrating upon the plans he has formulated for the future. I wish that he had acknowledged, at least, the mistakes of the past and assured us that they will not be repeated. Until we can get some statement in which a firm and known target is announced based upon pilot schemes, we shall never succeed in getting colonial development, not only to help the food situation, but also to benefit the people who live there. Until the Minister can give us this information, I believe that we stand no hope of achieving either of those objects.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Despite the concluding sentences of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) there has been clear evidence in this Debate that at last this project for the development of parts of Africa is being lifted from the more extreme bitternesses of party warfare. It was rather significant that the Minister of Food spent a large part of his speech in dealing with the mistakes and the failures of the Overseas Food Corporation under the control of Sir Leslie Plummer in Africa, and that it was left to Members opposite to say some good things about the success of the Corporation under the ægis of Sir Leslie Plummer in Queensland. I was delighted to hear the generous tribute paid to the Overseas Food Corporation's work in Queensland by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken.
I hope very much that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that the Corporation should be merged somehow with the Colonial Development Corporation, will not be followed up, because the Overseas


Food Corporation has a serious job to do in the Dominions, and notably in Australia, a job which the Colonial Development Corporation cannot possibly do. Australia is not a Colony, and does not like being described as such.
We are agreed on both sides that the troubles into which this vast development project has run are due to the desire to do too much too quickly. But there was a sentence in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member which suggested that he still does not realise just how slow we have now to go. It seems to me that after three or four years of great expenditure, great trials and energy, we still know precious little about the possibilities of this area. We do not yet know whether we can really grow groundnuts, or soya beans, or sunflowers, in the Kongwa area. We have no evidence one way or the other, and such evidence as we may have indicates that we shall not be able to do so.
It may well be that we shall have to rely on the development of types of grass, which I understand can be grown with a rainfall of about six inches. If we can discover that something like that can be done, then the possibilities of Kongwa are re-opened. It would mean a chance for ordinary farming. At the present moment, we just do not know what the position is about that area, or any other area. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) referred to the old rainfall stations in Kongwa, and told us, quite rightly, how worthless they are as guides to rainfall on the Kongwa site. Not only do we not know what is the position from previous experience, but it is extremely difficult to get any accurate information at the present time.
These rainfall gauges have a tremendous attraction to the Africans. They have a sort of ring round them, and these rings are regularly pinched and presented by Africans as bangles to their girl friends. It is one of the jokes there to ask an African native whether he is going to give his girl a rain gauge for Christmas. It is due to small reasons like this that it is extremely difficult to get any accurate knowledge about the rainfall in a given year.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will not the hon. Member agree that the natives of West Africa produce hundreds of thousands of tons of groundnuts without the benefit of

rainfall gauges, and seem to do it fairly well?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am afraid that I do not know anything about West Africa. I am talking about Tanganyika and the difficulties there of getting any accurate knowledge about the rainfall. I am afraid it is true that the knowledge so far gleaned does not justify us in saying that in any particular area we can grow a particular crop. Therefore, I say that we must go very slowly.
I quite agree with Members opposite who say that we must go in for pilot schemes, but pilot schemes on a very small scale. I do not see what good would be done by having a grandiose inquiry at the present time. What we really want are small groups of experts to be sent out to selected areas with the job of making tests over a period of many years to find out really what are the possibilities of the particular region they are investigating. Do not let my right hon. Friend be led into doing anything quickly, or on a large scale. Let him not think in the future in terms of a groundnut project, because he should not be concerned entirely with groundnuts but with all sorts of other things. There should not be just one project, but hundreds of small projects reasonably independent except for matters of finance. I do not want the same licence to be given to these small units in matters of finance as was given to the United Africa Company, or to the Overseas Food Corporation when it took over. They could be given a good deal of autonomy in other ways to go ahead as they think fit in finding out the best use to which the soil can be put.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, in what he seemed to suggest—that the original need which gave rise to this development project—the need for increasing the world's food supplies—was now less urgent. The fats position is certainly much easier, but the food position of the world as a whole is still very serious indeed. The population has been going up very sharply and the general level of consumption, thank goodness, has been going up just as sharply. The world demand for food now is far higher than before the war, and, therefore, it is every bit as urgent now as it was four years ago for us to set about trying improved production of food in any areas which we


can. If we in this country are not prepared to take the risks and the losses, which are inevitable at times in the development of the countries over which we have control, then we have no right to retain that control for ourselves.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) said he did not agree with the suggestion that the Overseas Food Corporation should be merged into the Colonial Office. Obviously it should, because the time is now ripe to recognise that Africa is neither a granary nor a food store for this country. The problem which faces Africa is to raise enough food and keep itself alive. I have said that on many occasions in this House and I repeat it again today, because it cannot be said too often. The problem of the African native is that he cannot do the work he ought to do, because he is not sufficiently well nourished. If the Corporation should be handed over to the Colonial Office, and that Department take in hand any of the schemes which are worthwhile in order to find food for the people living in Africa, it would be all to the good.

Mr. Mallalieu: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Overseas Food Corporation is not only concerned with Africa but with schemes in the Dominions, which the Colonial Office could not control?

Mr. Baldwin: I did not refer to the Overseas Food Corporation in the Dominions, because I want to say a word about it later. I want to stress that in my opinion this scheme should be passed over to the Colonial Office without any hesitation.
The Minister of Food suggested today that the Opposition had not timed this Debate well. I disagree, because if the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to July of last year he will find that some very sound suggestions were made then as to what should be done with the groundnut scheme. Sir John Barlow, who was then a Member of the House, made a most constructive speech and hon. Members on this side who followed him, urged that a fact-finding commission, not a face saving commission, ought to be sent out at once to investigate the position. The Minister of Food said it would be unwise to beat a retreat. The successful business

man is the one who recognises that he has made a mistake and is prepared to cut his losses. I hope that the commission now going out to East Africa to make this investigation will advise the Minister as to its future, and, if they find it necessary, will recommend that it should be abandoned. There is no reason why it should not be abandoned if we think it should be. The taxpayers of this country should not be asked to pay any more for a scheme which is not going to prove worthwhile.
I have the greatest respect for professors. They do a grand work when they are on a committee, provided there is a leavening of practical men who know their job and get a living at the particular problem which they are investigating. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) started off by suggesting that on this commission there should be some of these practical men. He then proceeded to name three or four professors in this country who should be added to the commission. He also suggested the names of three or four practical men. I am not going further than that. There should be on this commission some of the eminent agriculuralists in Africa, whether it be Kenya or Tanganyika, who have had experience of the job, who know its possibilities and importance, and they should assist this commission in coming to the right decision.
In the Debate 12 months ago we repeatedly suggested that there should be pilot schemes and small testing schemes. It was looked upon at that time as a political stunt. I am glad to think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, East, approves now of the idea and that the political element will be kept out of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why should it not be kept out of it? When politics enter into a Colonial Debate it frequently starts on the other side and I want to keep away from them: it is not necessary to introduce that element into Colonial Debates. We all wish this scheme well and we have said so and helped it so far as we can.

Mr. Mikardo: Especially at the General Election.

Mr. Baldwin: It was only when we found an obstinate refusal to recognise the facts, and when statements were made


which were utterly contrary to the facts, that any heat entered into our Debates.
I do not want to rake over any of the troubles of the past. They are apparent. What is to be done for the future of these particular areas? I am glad that the commission which is going out is to be confined to one area, because it may come to a decision quickly and the Minister could act accordingly. The way to help the African native would be to come to a decision with regard to this particular area of Kongwa, and find out, first of all, what really is the rainfall. It is possible to do so, and we should also try to discover whether we can bring water for man and beast to that area. If it is not possible then we should not allow any more money to be wasted on the place.
Here would be a good opportunity of testing out the African native as a cultivator of the soil responsible only, shall we say, to the Minister of Agriculture in Tanganyika. I am one of those who feel that the future of Africa is of extreme importance not only to this country but to the world. The future of Africa depends on the white European and the native. If the European goes out of Africa, as is suggested sometimes, the future of the native will be rather terrible. We have to work together. At Kongwa we have had buildings erected which can be turned into an African colony supervised for, and started by the white specialists who know the job and who can hand over as quickly as may be to the African native himself.
At the colleges we have in Africa, and also at our universities, which Africans attend, we are spending too much money and too much time turning out lawyers. We should be turning out people who know their job in cultivating and we should give these people responsibilities not only in Kenya but at Kongwa. Let them have the responsibility of looking after their own native affairs and see what are their abilities. It is only by giving them authority and responsibility that we can get them away from their present conditions. If we did something of that sort in Africa we should see something really worth while.
I want to say a few words about the Queensland scheme. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East, said that the

Overseas Food Corporation could not be turned over to the Colonial Office because of the type of work we were doing in Queensland and that the Government there would not stand for any interference from the Colonial Office. I suggest that the Commonwealth of Australia should not stand any interference from the Overseas Food Corporation. I am certain that all that the Australian people want is the knowledge that there is a market in this country for the commodities which they can produce and then they will produce whatever it may be at a greatly lower cost than will some big corporation with a responsibility in both countries.
All that the Australian wants is the same as the British farmer wants—confidence in the long-term future. He would not have accepted the Food Corporation in Queensland except that he realised that we had put money into that scheme and would be bound to continue and develop transport, and so find a market for his produce. To suggest that we in this country, or the over-big Corporation in that country, can produce as efficiently or as economically as the Australian on the spot is just not true.
It is a long time since we had any information about the sorghum scheme. I want to warn the Minister of Food that the schemes which are running in Australia are being carried out on land which has suffered from severe, periodic drought. I would call attention to the fact that this is not the first time that attemps have been made to develop the areas which are now being developed and that there have been many projects in the past in that part of the world. They have failed. I suggest to the Minister that before we launch out into too extravagant a scheme in Australia we should see where we are going. I can speak with some little knowledge about that part of the world, as one of my forebears helped to develop it nearly a hundred years ago.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Queensland Socialist Government tried primary production themselves a few years ago. They purchased one of the stations of my ancestors in order to develop it. It was not many years before they realised that primary production was not a State enterprise. They cut out as soon as they saw it,


and attempted to sell back to the original owners the station which they had made rather a mess of. Since the Australian has failed as a State primary producer, great temerity will be shown by this country if we attempt to do what they have found impossible. I suggest to the Minister that he goes steadily on that project before he gets carried away too far. The Development Corporation was a great idea but it miscarried in starting the idea that the Overseas Food Corporation or the Colonial Corporation could produce food. The money that we can spare in this country for the Empire or the Commonwealth should be spent on developing transport by road and rail, and on water supplies. If we do that, production will automatically follow. Before the Government embark on any more of these fantastic schemes, they should consider whether it is not worth while spending what money we can afford upon developing those countries in the way I have mentioned.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I share very much the desire expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) that this Debate should continue, as it has begun, on a relatively non- party and unheated basis. If one seeks to see first of all what damage can be caused by dealing with these matters on a biased and party basis, and secondly to see who are the people who like dealing with these matters in that way, one has only to look back at the behaviour of some of the organised Conservative hecklers during the General Election. They were obviously trained to go around the meetings singing merely the word "groundnuts."

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it was not just "nuts"?

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry that I did not catch the hon. Member's interjection, but it must have been very funny because he is enjoying his own joke, as he generally does.
We have had a very good Debate, in which people have tried to make constructive suggestions and to get down to the truth of what has happened in the past in connection with the groundnut scheme. They have not sought to make, on one side or the other, cheap party political

points. I am sorry that there has been an occasional divergence from that high standard in the direction of pursuing the vendetta which has gone on for a long time against the present Secretary of State for War and against Sir Leslie Plummer. I should like to give two examples to show the way in which some hon. Members have let down the rest of their case and their otherwise high standard of behaviour.
In the first place, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)—I see that he is not in his place and am sorry about that, because we had a good Debate until he got up and we have had a good Debate since he sat down—made a great point of saying that if this scheme had been carried out by a private firm for its own profit, it would have been done more prudently and in a different way. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) reminded the hon. Gentleman of the evidence given by the managing director of the managing agency to the Public Accounts Committee. He was asked directly: "If you had been running this scheme for your own company, in what different way would you have run it?" He replied: "In no different way at all. I should have run it precisely as I did on behalf of the Government."

Mr. Osborne: He would have lost his job.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) cannot surmise what the policy of the United Africa Company would have been in sacking its directors. He must stop mistaking vehemence for knowledge. This managing director, who was a very good and balanced witness, spoke as the executive of one of the most successful large-scale, privately-owned enterprises in this country, knowing perhaps as much about business as even the hon. Member for Louth. He said bluntly that if he had been running this thing on behalf of his own employers and for their profit, he would not have run it at all differently. I cannot therefore imagine why the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, or anybody else, should try to make the point that the thing would have been done differently or more prudently for a private agency.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, went on to argue that the insistence


upon doing this job in a large-scale way was not in pursuit of the technical correctness of the scheme, but only in furtherance of a political objective. I would remind the Committee that the size of the scheme was determined on the day when the House accepted without a Division, the report of the Wakefield Commission. By accepting it, the House gave the Government instructions to carry out the scheme in that way, at that speed and in that size. It is very easy for everybody to find scapegoats for anything that goes wrong. Some people have blamed the Wakefield Mission, some the United Africa Company, some the Government, some the Secretary of State for War and some Sir Leslie Plummer; but the one group of people which no hon. Member has so far blamed is the one which is most responsible, and that is hon. Members who were in the House in the last Parliament. I was one, and I accept my share of responsibility.
It is no use saying that it was political pressure by the Government which created the size, shape and speed of the scheme. Let us recapitulate for a moment. Mr. Frank Samuel, of Lever Bros., conceived the idea that we might have a smack at large-scale mechanised production of oil-bearing seeds in this part of Africa. Very properly, as a good citizen, he came to the Government to put forward his idea, which he had only in embryo. He said that someone more expert than he had better look at it.
As a result, the Government sent out a mission of three people who were experts. One of them has been described by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) as one of the great practical experts. Those three people were sent to Africa to advise, first, on whether there was anything in Mr. Samuel's idea at all, and secondly, if there was, what sort of scheme should be operated. They produced a report which was brought before the House and passed without a Division and without a note of criticism, but with the commendations and blessings of hon. Members of all parties. We said that it was a bit chancy and that there were a great many unanswered questions about the project, but the need was great—we all thought the need was great no matter that we may now have learnt more and

have become wise after the event—and said that we ought to have a crack at it. Unanimously, we said to the Government, "Go and do what the Wakefield Mission recommends."
We cannot now shed the blame. I do not ask any new hon. Member to share the blame but only those who were with me in the last Parliament. We cannot now say that anyone but ourselves was responsible for the size, shape and speed of the scheme, and if the size, shape and speed were dictated only by political considerations, hon. Gentlemen opposite are as much in this political conspiracy as we are on this side, because they made exactly the same mistake as we did the day that Command Paper 7050, the Report of the Wakefield Mission, was debated.

Mr. Gammans: I was present then. If the scheme had been the howling success that we were told it would be, would the hon. Gentleman have given credit in his General Election speeches to the Opposition for supporting it?

Mr. Mikardo: That is quite hypothetical. My case is that if it had been a howling success I should never have been asked a question about it during the whole of my election campaign, but I hope that if I had been, I should have answered such a question fairly. I cannot say ex hypothesi that I would have been so much of an archangel. As the hon. Gentleman knows, people are not at their best, their most objective and their most angelic, in the heat of an election campaign.
I have another unpleasant thing to say, and I am rather sorry to have to say it. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) made a speech which I enjoyed, for it was an objective one and set a high tone for the Debate, but he permitted himself a departure from his otherwise high standard in one respect. He said that we had before us two important documents on which we could base our judgment of the matter. One of these was the book written by Mr. Alan Wood and the other was the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that he would agree with me that, whatever high regard one may have for Mr. Alan Wood as a journalist and as a


reporter, hon. Members in this Committee cannot give as much weight to the observations of an ex-employee of the Corporation as we can to the findings of a Select Committee of this House, and I find it all the more surprising that, while the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire quoted in extenso from Mr. Alan Wood's book, he did not once quote from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. He quoted some of the evidence.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is anxious to interrupt me. If he looks in HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that on two or three occasions he quoted some of the evidence which was given to the Committee, but I do not recall that he quoted the text of the Report on any occasion.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Indeed, I did. I quoted at some length from paragraph 27 on page 11 of the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, and referred to it constantly. Nor did I say that the documents were to be taken as of equal value. I said that both the Public Accounts Committee and Mr. Wood's book approached the same problem from different angles, but, broadly, came to the same conclusions.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not think they did. I say that as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and my feeling is that there is very little in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which provides any consolation or any ammunition for those who want to make any severe criticism of the Ministry of Food or the Overseas Food Corporation. That is perhaps why the Report has not been so freely quoted. We shall look in HANSARD tomorrow and see whether I am right about that or whether the hon. Gentleman is. My memory of it—I listened to the whole of his speech with great interest—was that, while he quoted some of the evidence, he did not quote any of the Report. If I turn out to be wrong, I will apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
To give one example, he said with some vehemence that he thought that the evidence given by Sir Leslie Plummer in refutation of the suggestion that we would have learnt a great deal from a pilot-scheme was the weakest part of that

gentleman's evidence. He thought that Sir Leslie's views on that subject and the argument that we should not have been better off with a pilot-scheme would not stand up and could not be accepted, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Public Accounts Committee did not dispute Sir Leslie's view. Neither the Public Accounts Committee nor a single member of it questioned for a moment Sir Leslie's view. It neither supported his view nor refuted it.
On the Public Accounts Committee there were one right hon. Gentleman and six hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the House. If I may pass such a judgment without being presumptuous. I should like to say that they devoted all their efforts, as we all did, to getting to the truth of the matter without generating any heat and without any party bias at all. No more than we did on our side did the right hon. Gentleman and the six hon. Gentlemen opposite find it within their competence to say, after listening to Sir Leslie Plummer, that they could not accept his view on the subject of pilot-schemes, and in that regard the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is not supported by one colleague on his Front Bench and six of his hon. Friends.

Sir John Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Committee did not pursue any further the question of Sir Leslie Plummer's view upon the value or otherwise of pilot unit experiments, was that we had been told in evidence by all the witnesses concerned that the overriding instructions from the Ministry had precluded experiment, and, therefore, there was no great importance in pursuing the point at all? The Ministry of Food accepted responsibility for those instructions.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not accept that at all. It is perfectly true that we were told what the hon. Baronet says, but that is not the reason we did not pursue the question whether it is or is not true that one can learn something about large-scale mechanised agriculture from pilot schemes. We did not pursue that question because it would have involved a great deal more time than we could have afforded, and much more expertise than the whole 15 of us possessed. That is why I say that it is wrong for anybody to make a sweeping judgment that Sir Leslie Plummer was right or wrong about these things.
I am well content to believe in these matters, on which I am certainly no expert, that whilst one can learn something about making an engineering product from constructing one or two prototypes, it may well be true that one can learn nothing very valuable about farming 100,000 acres from digging up a single cabbage patch.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has made such a false impression with that last statement that it must be corrected. There was put at the disposal of the Corporation and of the Government all the experience in mechanisation of the sisal growers who had cleared tens of thousands of acres. That was totally disregarded.

Mr. Mikardo: That does not seem to me to be relevant to the question we are discussing as to whether there ought to have been a pilot scheme. What the sisal growers did does not seem to me to enter into the matter at all.
What were the main conclusions of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee? That Report was described by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire as a balanced Report. I am glad to have that view of it from the hon. Member, which I share. I think it was quite a reasonably balanced Report. It did not try to whitewash anybody and it did not try to blacken anybody. It tried to hold a balance fairly, to seek where the truth lay in respect of the past operations in the groundnut field. However, anybody reading that Report would say that by and large the Ministry and the Overseas Corporation do not come badly out of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not nearly so badly as I had anticipated from all the uninformed comment that I heard before I began, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to hear the evidence.
There are three parties who do come out very badly. The first are the carping critics who have made it difficult throughout this scheme to recruit adequate personnel for it. The fact that this scheme was a shuttlecock of party politics inhibited from the very first both United Africa Company (Managing Agency) Limited and the Overseas Food Corporation from getting the personnel they required. There was one period during the interregnum of the changeover from the managing agency to the Corporation when it was absolutely vital, as

those who read the Report and the evidence will see, to get more administrators as well as accountants out in East Africa. At that vital period it is clear that the task of getting good-class personnel was rendered virtually impossible because of the political warfare against the Corporation.

Mr. W. Fletcher: By the Minister's own actions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—

Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I have given way more times in my short speech than any of the other previous speakers put together. If I may be allowed to do so, I will finish my speech in my own way.

Mr. Cuthbert: Mr. Cuthbert (Arundel and Shoreham) rose—

Mr. Braine: Mr. Braine (Billericay)  rose—

Mr. Mikardo: Hon. Members opposite may not like the fact but it comes out quite clearly in the evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Hon. Gentlemen can read it—

Mr. Braine: Mr. Braine rose—

Mr. Mikardo: It is no use the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) bobbing up and down like a jack-in-the-box. It is all in the Report and he can read it. It comes out quite clearly in the evidence that there was a period when the existing staff were discouraged and when potential staff were warned off—

Mr. W. Fletcher: By the antics of the Minister.

Mr. Mikardo: By the amount of criticism of the Corporation that went on.

Mr. Cuthbert: Mr. Cuthbert rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman would give way—

Mr. Mikardo: No, I am not going to give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I shall neither give way nor withdraw. I repeat, I have given way in this speech more times than all the previous speakers put together. Perhaps I can now go on and finish my speech in my own way without interruption from hon. Gentlemen, one of whom walked in three minutes ago, whereas the Debate began at 3.30.
The second of the three parties who come badly out of this Report—and I am sorry to have to say this—is the Wakefield Mission. It is quite clear that it was that Mission, undoubtedly with complete inadvertence, which misled the Minister and the House when we accepted their Report as the basis of the scheme. Let us see what the Report says of the estimates of the Wakefield Mission. I quote from paragraph 26, which says that they proved to be extremely inaccurate:
The Report of the Wakefield Mission … turned out to he seriously misleading. Your Committee are left with the impression that the basic fault in the scheme was the failure to realise the impracticability of the original plans in the conditions which existed immediately after the war.
I repeat that that failure is a failure in which all the Members of the last House of Commons must share, because it was we who accepted that Report.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not in paragraph 26. Really the hon. Gentleman ought to give way and not persistently mislead the Committee.

Mr. Mikardo: Maybe I have it wrong. If the hon. Gentleman persists, and does not mind my delaying the Committee, I will read right through the Report to see whether it is in paragraph 26, 27, 28 or 29.

Mr. Jennings: I hope the hon. Gentleman will find it.

Mr. Mikardo: I beg the pardon of the Committee. It is in paragraph 34, not paragraph 26. I am very sorry. However, it does not alter the fact that the words I quoted are perfectly correct and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire need not get so heated about it. Now that I have been corrected, I will read it as coming from paragraph 34:
The Report of the Wakefield Mission … turned out to be seriously misleading. Your Committee are left with the impression that the basic fault in the scheme was the failure to realise the impracticability of the original plans in the conditions which existed immediately after the war.
I repeat, we must all share that responsibility and I take my whack of it. It seems to me to be strange that we should not bear these facts in mind whilst we are discussing the matter here.
The third and last of the three parties who come out badly from this Report—

and again I am sorry to have to say this—is the managing agency, the United Africa Company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I shall do a bit more quoting since hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it. In the Report there is a summing up of the bad situation which the Corporation took over from the managing agency and there is a list of four serious faults which were in the organisation at the moment of the take-over. In giving evidence the United Africa Company, with only one very minor reservation, accepted that statement of four serious defects in organisation as being substantially true. So much for what is said in the Report.
I want to say three things to the Minister. First, I am sure that the Committee were very pleased to hear how successful are the operations in Queensland, the details of the large-scale reorganisation which is at present being carried out, and the many improvements in organisation which are being made. But did all these improvements and this impressive record in Queensland happen only since yesterday or the day before? Some of them obviously were initiated a long time ago. They must have taken a long time to come to fruition and some of them, therefore, must have been initiated by Sir Leslie Plummer. In order to find a fair balance we might, therefore, have had some tribute to the good work which he has done and a less grudging tribute than has sometimes been paid, as well as less of the criticisms which have been made of his alleged shortcomings.
Secondly, I say to the Minister, for goodness sake do not be misled by a craze for over-careful book-keeping—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but I will try to clarify that remark. Everybody who runs any organisation knows that while certain accountancy principles must be adhered to, it is possible to make a fetish out of being over-zealous in book-keeping.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Mr. W. Fletcher  indicated assent.

Mr. Mikardo: I see the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), who is an experienced businessman, nodding his head in agreement. and I am most grateful to him. He will know, as any businessman knows, that it is possible to have such involved systems of bookkeeping that one creates something which


is equivalent to hiring a man at £3 a week to watch an open drain in case a £5 note blows down it once every 20 years, and then when it does blow down the man is fast asleep and does not see it. It is possible to be over-accurate in these matters. In all these things we have to weigh results against costs, to see whether the game is worth the candle, whether it is literally worth hundreds of thousands of entries a year in order to safeguard the overspending of a few shillings here and there. It is no use hon. Members opposite wagging their heads. This is a doctrine which is accepted, and rightly so, in every private enterprise business.
The objective of the Overseas Food Corporation is to produce food; the objective of the Colonial Development Corporation is to develop the Colonies. It is not the objective of either of them to produce books of account, which are not the final objective, but are merely means to an end. I beg of the Minister to beware of being led astray by Sir Eric Coates and Messrs. Cooper Bros. into a situation in which he will be able to produce to Parliament a wonderful set of books of accounts and nothing else. It is quite easy to do that.
Thirdly, I say to the Minister, although it scarcely needs saying, do not be frightened by past failures and miscalculations into being over-cautious. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that the scheme must go on and that we must not draw back. In every large enterprise there are always miscalculations. I have already described how some were made by the Wakefield Mission. Even on a much tinier colonial development scheme of private enterprise by Mr. Billy Butlin in the Bahamas, on a little island with no houses or schools or social services for the natives, he miscalculated the cost by £1 million. There always are miscalculations on that sort of thing.
One has always to take risks, and it ill becomes hon. Members opposite, who are always talking about the need for go-getting, initiative, risk-bearing, and adventure in commerce—merchant adventurers and all the rest—to criticise a public body when it decides to take a risk on a very large venture. Miscalculations and mistakes there are bound to be and have been—the greatest of them made by the Members of the House of Commons

unanimously in the last Parliament. Let us not be deterred, however, by these miscalculations and mistakes from proceeding with what has been one of the most imaginative, adventurous and beneficent schemes evolved by the mind of man within our lifetime.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Before I reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), there are one or two things I want to say to the Minister of Food. congratulate him upon the clear, frank way in which he addressed the Committee, and I agree with almost every word he said. The only passage in his speech which I regretted was his rather florid peroration. We have had enough of perorations and high-sounding phrases about the groundnut scheme. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman put it in because he felt that every speech ought to have a peroration, but it would have been better had he sat down after putting forward his statement of facts.
I am sure that I speak for my colleagues on this side in saying that the right hon. Gentleman will receive every support from us if he proceeds in such a frank, clear and fresh-air manner as he has begun. He said that he hoped the Debate, whatever its result, would at any rate result in a message of goodwill, encouragement and gratitude being sent out to those working in Africa. I certainly wish that that may be the case.
The best message of goodwill that the right hon. Gentleman could send out would be to assure the men working there that those who are deemed redundant shall have fair treatment. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of "a clear-cut, realistic modification of the longterm programme," that is a polite way of saying that many men will be declared redundant. As I understand it, there is anxiety in East Africa. Many men have removed themselves, lock, stock and barrel, from this country with their wives and families, having sold their houses and so on, and they are getting dismissed with four months' salary as the only compensation. In drawing a comparison with Sir Leslie Plummer, I am not saying that he should not have been compensated, but comparisons are bound to be made, and I say to the Minister that


if he wishes to encourage the staff in East Africa, the best way he can do so is in the way I have suggested.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the scheme should not be shut down. It must go on, and I hope that it will continue along the lines of the Colonial Development Corporation. Whatever the hon. Member for Reading, South, may say, most of the undertakings of the Colonial Development Corporation have produced results in terms of £ s. d., and I hope that that will be the way in which the East African scheme will continue.
Like the hon. Member for Reading, South, I am a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, only I have the advantage over him of attending 50 per cent. more of the sittings when evidence was taken on the groundnut scheme than he did.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman was appointed before I was.

Mr. Nicholson: If the hon. Member could not have attended, then of course I withdraw that. Unlike him, however, I do not accept the Report of the Public Accounts Committee as inspired Holy Writ. My impression after listening to all the evidence and taking, I confess, far more than my fair share of the cross-examination, is still one of almost complete mystery. I do not think that we did more than touch the fringes of this vast problem.
The function of the Public Accounts Committee is, after all, very limited. I am afraid, however, that we exceeded our duty, although for very good reasons, and I am very glad that we did. The functions of the Public Accounts Committee are really to see that money is spent in the way it is voted by Parliament and that there is no unnecessary extravagance. We were not a Royal Commission of inquiry into the history or future of the groundnut scheme. I can say this as a member of the Public Accounts Committee; I think a great deal too much importance can be attached to that Report. What is significant is that the Committee examined the scheme and reported. The Committee is famed for under-statements rather than over-statements. I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, South, that the Public Accounts Committee acted in a

completely non-party spirit, and I pay tribute to him for the extremely fair way in which he acted, and I am glad he paid the same tribute to Members on this side of the Committee.
I feel that this air of mystery is very great, and I do not think it is altogether necessary or right that we should approach it in a completely non-party spirit. We should approach it in a completely non-party spirit to the extent that we should not try to score cheap party points, but any verdict which may be passed on the activity of a Government must have a political content, and I certainly approach the history of the groundnut scheme as one who is criticising the Government responsible for it and I make no apology for doing so. I do not think the House is always at its best when proclaiming its non-party approach to a question; it generally means a woolly approach. I get the impression of reading a modern edition of "Alice in Wonderland." I wonder what future historians will make of it. I wish to quote from Mr. Wood's book, although he was referring only to the Southern Province. He says:
Long years hence those who saw it, sitting by their firesides in reminiscent mood, may wonder if it really happened or whether they merely dreamt, in some idle moment, that a timber mill was sited before anyone had really counted the trees for the wood; that a pipeline costing £500,000 or more was built to take fuel, at a huge operating expense, to tanks set miles from anywhere in the African bush; that a railway was begun without anyone knowing exactly where it was going to in the end; and that inspiring everything was a faith that you could grow groundnuts when you had not even bothered to inspect the ground.
The future historian, whoever he may be, will feel similar emotions about Kongwa and, possibly, Urambo. Does the Committee realise that the conception of this scheme was that an area little short of the size of Yorkshire should be cleared and put down to groundnuts, and that it should be done, as far as Kongwa was concerned, without any adequate knowledge of the rainfall, or adequate testing of the soil, or any of those pilot plans of which we have heard so much, and with no knowledge of the diseases which would affect the crops? I do not accept for a moment as an adequate explanation for the refusal to adopt a pilot plot policy that large-scale mechanised agriculture could only be tried out on a


large scale. I accept the explanation of Sir Leslie Plummer that those were the instructions he received from the Minister.
The more we go into the history of the groundnut affair, the deeper the mystery becomes. The greatest mystery of all was this. What was the scheme to be? Was it to be primarily an agricultural scheme? The answer is that it was not; it was primarily an engineering scheme. Yet the Wakefield Mission was allowed to go out without a single engineering expert. This vast project to clear by mechanised means an area nearly as large as Yorkshire was undertaken (a) without finding out whether there were machines to do it under prevailing local conditions, (b) whether those machines, or any, could be got, (c) whether those machines could be maintained, and (d) whether there were adequate spares for the machines. Even today the spares problem is most acute in the Kongwa region. It will really baffle the historian in the future. Many will write a thesis about it, but they will all end in question marks. It was a military operation undertaken by amateur strategists, by the sort of people who, in 1942, were crying out for "A Second Front now."

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not a fact, to put it shortly, that the scheme derived its inspiration from the great need of a great capitalist combine to get more fats?

Mr. Nicholson: I know the theory which the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Thurtle) single-handed constantly put forward in the Select Committee; it is there in the evidence. There is an element of truth in it, naturally, in that the great capitalist combine, as he calls it, which dealt largely in fats was anxious, as the Ministry of Food and all nutritional experts have been and are, over the future fat position of the world. It is a fact that the initial conception of the scheme came from Mr. Samuel, but if the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury is going so far as to deduce from that that it is a capitalist ramp forced on a Socialist Government, I cannot follow him. I have said enough about the air of mystery and I want to get down to what I consider

to be the most important element in the problem.

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Member leaves the point about amateur strategists dealing with a warlike operation, will he say whether he applies that to General Harrison who, as far as I know, was engineer-in-chief in South-East Asia during the war.

Mr. Nicholson: I apply the remark to all who gave advice on the scheme originally and to the Minister and the Government who accepted it. I am not seeking scapegoats, or trying to make a scapegoat of Sir Leslie Plummer, General Harrison, or anyone else. The fundamental mystery of the scheme is that it made a large number of clever, honest and experienced men act like lunatics. That is the real mystery. I am not accusing anyone of criminal or bad intentions. I am saying there never can be any adequate explanation of the sheer folly, the sheer absence of planning with which this scheme was entered into, unless we assume that those who took the top level political decisions are to blame.
What I am trying to impress on the Committee is the exceedingly great difficulty of accounting for the past. Three questions must be answered. First, why was the scheme undertaken in this way? The answer is quite simple, that the Minister and the Government and possibly some of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers were obsessed with the idea that the larger an undertaking the less important the errors and difficulties would become—and that is sheer folly. The second question is why did the Government not draw in their horns when they could have done? It was constantly considered. Why have we only today heard a commonsense statement by the Minister of Food? The Minister spoke wise words and my comment to my neighbour was, "Those words are three years too late."
I come to the main point of my speech; that is, who is to blame? This indeed has a political content. I ask the Committee to believe that I am not approaching it primarily as a party politician, but as one who believes it is the duty of an Opposition to criticise the Government when they consider them to blame. I do not want to have witch-hunting. I think we should thank Sir Leslie Plummer and the others for having


done their best, as undoubtedly they have done. I believe the clue to the whole situation is in the personality of the former Minister. I do not mind if I am accused of pursuing a political vendetta, or not. All I know is that a man whose activities I criticise most strongly and condemn most emphatically is still one of His Majesty's Ministers, and I should not be doing my duty if I did not tell the Committee why I think that the right hon. Gentleman should no longer be a member of the Government, and above all, the holder of one of the most important offices at the present time.
I believe him to be a man of immense ability. I hear, and it is only hearsay, that someone in the Ministry of Food said that the right hon. Gentleman could argue with the head of any Department in the Ministry and defeat him on his own ground, if that man was wrong—and that is a tremendous tribute. I believe him to be a man of great personal charm. I believe him in private life to be a man of impeccable honour and honesty. But I believe that a certain part of his mind is permanently closed. I believe that his whole conduct of the groundnut scheme showed that his mind was impervious to reason as soon as he had adopted the scheme.
I go further, and I say that the main reason why so many millions of pounds of money have been wasted, so many hearts broken and so much disrepute cast upon the Government of this country and the country as a whole is that he did not treat the House with candour. I believe sincerely that he thought he was doing right. He thought that the end justified the means. The long and short of it is that those thoughts led him to tell untruths to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I make that statement after careful thought. I will give my grounds for saying that, and I have the references here in HANSARD: On 14th March, 1949, he said to the House:
… our scheme … will be far more needed and far more profitable than was estimated originally.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1950; Vol. 462, c. 1761.]
I believe he knew that to be untrue. I am not saying that he said those words with any unworthy motive. He believed that he was doing his duty, but a Minister who believes that by telling an untruth he is doing his duty to the House had better soon retire—

Mr. Thurtle: May I submit this point of order to you, Sir Charles? I was once told in the House, and not so long ago, that it was un-Parliamentary to call a man a liar. When one says that an hon. Member has said things which are untrue, is not that the same thing as calling him a liar?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Certainly, but the word "liar" has not been used. If it had been used, I should have stopped the hon. Gentleman. I think that the hon. Gentleman is developing his argument, and I do not consider it my duty to stop him.

Mr. Nicholson: Even if it were not un-Parliamentary, I should not have used the word "liar." I use the word "lie" to describe something told deliberately with unworthy motives, and I have been particularly careful to say that I sincerely believe that the Minister thought he was doing his duty in misleading the House. If it is not in order in a great Parliamentary assembly to say that a man has misled the House, and told untruths to the House from whatever motive, then I say that that renders our debates a farce.
My second point is this. On 27th July last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that the expenditure was a million pounds a month and it was a rapidly falling figure. That was not the case. Thirdly, on 21st November last year he produced his new plan for 600,000 acres knowing, I am firmly convinced, that it was nonsense. I am not making imputations against the personal honour of the right hon. Gentleman, but his method of reasoning, his psychology, his conception of his duty—we may call it what we like—shows him to be a man who thinks it right to mislead the House of Commons on important matters of Government policy. I say that is wrong and that he must go.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: We have had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). A very peculiar argument has been advanced, which, I think, was the burden of his speech, that the whole of the difficulties which undoubtedly faced this scheme were due to the personality of the former Minister of Food.
It would be a remarkable thing if all the arguments put up, not only from this side of the Committee but even more so from hon. Members on the other side, as to the failure to consult the appropriate authorities at the beginning—incidentally, before the previous Minister of Food took office—the failure to consult agriculturists, to test the rain fall, and so on, which have been regarded as the reason for the difficulties which have arisen, were all now to be dropped entirely for this fantastic charge that the whole of the difficulties have been due to the personality of one person.

Mr. Nicholson: I did not say, "the whole of the difficulties." What I have been trying to say to the Committee is that the depths of confusion into which we got, are explicable by the personality of the former Minister. I am not blaming him for the geographical structure of Africa, or anything else.

Mr. Hynd: But that was, in fact, what the hon. Member said and I would refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. What is more important, or, rather, less important, is the remarkable charge that the Minister was responsible for telling deliberate untruths to the House, which the hon. Gentleman said he may have expressed believing them himself, but misleading the House and, therefore, being untruthful. The remarkable quotations given by the hon. Member hardly bear out that charge.
The first was that the Minister expressed the view that the scheme would be far more needed and far more profitable than was first anticipated. I am unable to see how it can be regarded as an untruth when the Minister responsible for such a scheme expresses that as his view of the scheme at that particular time. I suggest that the hon. Member should be very careful when he brings that kind of statement into the category of untruths, because in spite of all that has been said from hon. Members opposite today, and in previous Debates, about how the Government could have foreseen the difficulties of this scheme and not so easily accepted the original estimates of the Wakefield Report, and so on, it is interesting to note that in the Debate on 6th November, 1947, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr.

Stanley), speaking on behalf of the Opposition, used these words:
But it all the forecasts are achieved—I prefer to say 'when' because I think that they will be achieved…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 2039-40.]
That, presumably, would come into the category of untruths as explained by the hon. Member—

Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Nicholson rose—

Mr. Hynd: No I shall not give way. It is a simple enough point. The point made by the hon. Member was that when the Minister expressed his view about the further development of the scheme it was untrue. I say that when the leading spokesman for the Opposition says he prefers to use the words "when the forecasts are achieved" because he thinks they will be, that would equally be an untruth. It is really nonsense to try to deal with an important subject in terms of that kind. I am rather surprised at the hon. Member introducing a note of that kind into the Debate.
Like most hon. Members on this side of the Committee, I am more than surprised at protestations from hon. Members opposite that this matter should not be made the subject of political controversy. I would have welcomed that in this Debate. Hon. Members opposite used that kind of argument but did not stick to it. It is precisely those who urge that we should keep this matter out of the political field, who have brought it into the political field. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) suggested that the whole scheme from the beginning was a political stunt. He said the scheme was launched on political grounds and that on political grounds an impossible pace was set. He was dealt with satisfactorily by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo).
I would remind hon. Members that the pace was set by the Wakefield Commission, which was inspired by the proposal of the United Africa Company. That Commission consisted not only of Mr. Wakefield himself, who, I understand, is not out of the good books of the Opposition and is regarded as a competent expert in these matters. The second party. making 66 per cent. of the Commission, was Mr. Martin, a man whom hon. Members opposite advocated should be brought back as one of the outstanding experts. Here we have the proposal of


these two men, who made up two-thirds of the Commission, and now we find hon. Members opposite telling us it was a political stunt.

Mr. Braine: In the Report of the Overseas Food Corporation for 1948-49, it is specifically stated of the Wakefield proposals that:
Ministers responsible examined them, discussed them with Colonial interests at home and overseas …"—

It being Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

GLOUCESTER EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I ask that consideration be deferred until Thursday, Sir. It may perhaps prevent misunderstanding among hon. Members if I explain that my postponement of this Bill until Thursday means that the Bill will be considered again on Thursday at the time of unopposed Private Business; that is, at 2.30. If it is necessary, I hope then to be able to appoint a time for an evening Debate to take place at the beginning of next week.

Consideration deferred until Thursday

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Overseas Food Corporation for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951.

OVERSEAS FOOD CORPORATION

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Braine: The Report states that:
Ministers responsible examined them,"—
The Wakefield proposals—
discussed them with Colonial interests at home and overseas, and passed them for detailed examination to officials. On 25th November, two months after the Mission's report had been presented, the Minister of Food informed the House of Commons that the Government had decided to proceed with the Scheme … but to delay any decision about the full scope of the plan until there had been more time to consider it.
Does not that place full responsibility upon the Ministers and the Government?

Mr. Hynd: I would certainly say that the Government should accept full responsibility for the size and the pace of the plan. But what I say now, in reference to the arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the pace of the plan was set as a political stunt, is that the pace was set by the Wakefield Commission, and that if hon. Members opposite suggest that the whole idea of Mr. Martin, Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Rosa was to lead the Labour Government into a trap I should not agree with them for a moment. That could be the only interpretation of that remarkable charge.
The further charge was made by the hon. Member for Newbury that the Minister accepted too lightly the assumptions of the plan. Again, the facts are to the contrary. Anyone who reads the White Paper will realise that. I do not propose to quote in extenso. I have done that previously. But in paragraph after paragraph of the Government White Paper a note of caution is struck on the estimates of the Wakefield Commission. The Government wrote down the figures given by the Wakefield Commission. One hon. Member opposite made a mistake in referring to the Wakefield Commission's proposal of 750 lb. an acre as an estimated crop for groundnuts in Kongwa. In fact, the Wakefield Commission's figure was 850 lb., and the Minister or Ministers responsible wrote that down, for safety's sake, by 100 lb. Evidently, even then they did not go far enough; but they certainly did not too lightly accept the assumptions Indeed, one paragraph says:
It does not, therefore, follow from the) Government's decision either that the particular localities described by the Mission will be developed or that the order or rate of development will be as envisaged in their report.


The White Paper also goes on to make it quite clear that in relation to the availability of materials and the experiences met with in the clearance of bush, and so on, the whole scheme might be radically altered from time to time. That is precisely what has happened. There has been no equanimity in the acceptance by the Government of the original fantastically optimistic estimates. As I have already indicated, the acceptance of these figures came very clearly from the right hon. Member for Bristol, West. He apparently accepted them without qualification.
In spite of what has been said about the failure to consult agriculturists and people with experience of Africa, the failure to consult engineers, sizal planters, and so on, hon. Members opposite who use the arguments know very well that it is complete nonsense. These men consulted all the available evidence which could be got about the prospects and potentialities of developing these areas for the growth of groundnuts, alternative oil foods, and so on.
The sisal planters have had some experience of clearing bush, but the firm which has been used by the sisal planters for any large-scale clearance is the same firm which was brought in for the groundnut clearance at Kongwa. They are the only people who have any experience at all of any kind of large-scale clearance of bush in Africa. There is no other firm in the world which has had more experience, or anything like the experience which would be necessary to tackle with any assurance the job such as that of Kongwa.
When the whole question is boiled down, the reason why it has not been so successful. the reason why people did not know enough about the soil, the rainfall or the hundred and one other factors in these areas. is because never before in the history of our colonial administration in Africa have adequate steps, or even substantial steps, been taken to find out about these matters. We heard a lot about that in the Debate on Colonial Affairs only last week. Geological surveys have never been taken in many of these territories, including Kongwa, Northern Rhodesia and other parts of Africa. No one knew precisely what the rainfall was in the Kongwa area or in the Southern Province.
That is not the fault of the former Minister of Food or even of the present Government. It is the fault of previous Governments, and it has been underlined on many occasions, not least by Mr. Wakefield himself. Mr. Wakefield, addressing a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts in April, 1948, made some most interesting statements. I recommend them to the reading of hon. Members opposite. Among other things, he said:
I speak now as a Colonial, for I worked for 25 years in East Africa and the West Indies, and finished my official service with the Colonial people fearful for their future. Until the Samuel Plan was produced, I could see nothing but famine, riots and revolution lying ahead. So much was said of the necessity for providing an economic basis for social progress and political advance; but little or nothing was happening apart from a general political awakening in Africa.
That is the opinion of Mr. Wakefield, who certainly does not tend very strongly to support the Government line on this scheme now. It may be said that it is easy enough for a post-war Government, faced with the situation in Africa and the situation developing throughout the world, to go in with an entirely new conception of how this problem should be dealt with.
The historical fact is that we are completely ignorant of the conditions of this part of the world through the neglect of past Governments, and not of the present Government.

Mr. Gammans: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, if there were no statistics about rainfall or anything else, is not that an argument for going slowly and for having a pilot plot?

Mr. Hynd: It might be if we were concerned with carrying on colonial development at the same pace as it has been carried on in the past. But there have been two world wars and a political awakening is taking place in Africa no less than in East Asia. There was, in 1946 and 1947, a definite threat of complete famine throughout the world within the next seven years. In those conditions, to talk about going in on the old basis of colonial development, for 50, 60 or 70 years—to test rainfalls and to make sure that every two or three miles of soil was of the same consistency and to find out precisely what it would grow, and so on, by the old colonial methods—would have meant that this scheme would never have come to fruition at all.
I could give many examples of the failure even of the European planters in East Africa to make any substantial experiments of this kind. The crops there are almost entirely confined—or they were until recently—to one or two which are well known to have been established there, and there was very little experimentation at all. They did not go in there for that purpose; they went in to make a profit, and the European farmers certainly did not go there to set up experimental stations and make experiments with a tremendous variety of seed in order to find out those which might be successful.

Mr. G. Beresford Craddock: That sort of thing has been done all over Africa by planters for the last 30 or 40 years. and most of the crops grown there today are the result of these pilot experiments.

Mr. Hynd: I know, but where are the citrus fruits? What kind of crops can be grown in Tanganyika or in East Africa? Ask the farmers how many experiments they have had to find out. They do not go in for substantial experiments, because they cannot afford to do it. One of the reasons why the scheme had to be launched on a big scale was because of the circumstances of the time, which indicated that, if we were to make any substantial progress in Africa within a reasonable time, we had to take big risks and do it in a big way, which is precisely what we have done.
The Minister's speech has been welcomed very much on the opposite side of the Committee today. Frankly, I did not see a great deal in it to welcome, because all he said is that this was not the proper time to have this Debate, that it would be better to wait until the working party in Kongwa had reported, until the harvests were in, until September or October, when a White Paper could be produced. I do not think there is anything very dynamic about that, or that it represents any very great and revolutionary change in the situation, but I was a little disturbed by the way the Minister is not being forced by too much pressure from the opposite side to go far too slow in this scheme.
If we do, we shall lose all the objectives set forth in the original scheme, not only in regard to the production of food for this and other countries, but in regard

to the much wider and more important aspect of the development of the East African territories. Among other things, the Minister said that it would be wrong to focus too much attention on the original purposes of the scheme, which were the production of fats. That was not the original purpose, but one of the things which gave it immediate urgency at the time.
The whole background of the scheme, as is clearly seen in the White Paper. was as a scheme of Colonial development to enable us to open up these territories, not just to provide hospitals and welfare schemes for Africans, but to enable them to overcome the pressure of population and provide more space for Africans, free from the tsetse fly, and also provide them with the possibility of growing their own food. [Laughter.] I notice that one hon. Member is nodding in agreement with what I am saying while another is laughing it to scorn. The idea was to build up, not only an indigenous food supply for the African population, but also to enable them to build up an export trade to help them to import other things which they needed. It was to bring about an independent economy in these territories, to bring an end to the perpetual subsidising of these territories by the British taxpayer, and to open up an entirely new prospect in which life for the Africans—

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman say, then, why it was called the groundnut scheme?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, because that was the immediate urgent objective of the Kongwa and Urambo scheme. It is just a question of reading the Report and finding out precisely what was said, but I do not want to take up any more time.
The point has been raised about transferring the whole scheme to the Colonial Office. I do not pay a great deal of attention to that, although much has been said about it. For myself, I am not very much concerned whether it is run by the Colonial Office or by the Ministry of Food or any particular Government Department. From the point of view of the technical difficulties, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), to transfer the scheme to the Colonial Office would be to circumscribe activity of this kind in the Colonial territories and to cut out other advantageous schemes, such as the one in


Queensland, because they are in different territories, though requiring the same kind of financing, accounting and everything else.
That does not appear to me to be a particularly logical proposition. The fact is that, when we lay aside all the formalities as to whether it is the Ministry of Food or the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is to run the scheme, if the scheme is being run in Tanganyika it will be run by people suitable for that kind of job, just as it is now. They will be people with experience and knowledge of agriculture and engineering in East Africa, who would obviously be selected for that purpose by whatever Ministry might be running it. It is merely a question which of the two Departments is the most efficient machine to cope with the work. The rest of it is entirely psychological, and, from that aspect of the matter. I say that it should be placed under the Colonial Office, when we might find the answer to the problem of developing the Colonial territories.
I want to come now to the question of the present position in Kongwa, Urambo and the Southern Province. It is true—and nobody on this side of the Committee burks the issue—that we are all considerably disappointed at the results. and particularly in Kongwa, but this was an experimental scheme. In the original scheme, the promoters had selected a number of areas which seemed to offer the best prospects in the opinion of the only people who knew the conditions—the United Africa Company, Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Martin and others. They chose the only areas which seemed to offer any promise of successful results. They decided to open up a certain number of these areas for experimental purposes, and they began at Kongwa, because it was the only place at which they could begin, for the reason that it was the only one which had any communications to the sea and a harbour, as well as a railway, which was very quickly extended up to the groundnut area. That was why Kongwa was selected in the first instance.
If they had been all-wise and omnipotent, they would have selected the most successful experimental plot in the first place but, in that case they need not have experimented anywhere

else. Experiments are not carried out that way. When trying experiments, one does not pick out the successful one before one has tried all the others, and it has been unfortunate in this case that Kongwa, which was the most promising in the early stage, has not been so successful as was expected. I am particularly surprised that sunflowers have failed at Kongwa, because, at the beginning of 1947–48, when it was discovered that the ground, having been cleared of bush, might not be suitable for groundnuts, attempts were made on pilot plots, which do exist, to develop very many different varieties of sunflowers. Very nearly all the different kinds available—50 or 60 varieties—as well as sorghum and other plants were tried.
When I was there in 1948, there were remarkably good samples of successful sunflower growing on these pilot plots. I was assured by Mr. Farr and by many of his colleagues, who certainly had some knowledge of what they were talking about, that they had been pleasantly surprised at the results obtained from some of these sunflowers, and there is no question at all that they were extremely successful on those plots. But when they were translated into mass cultivation over a wide area they failed.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Lack of rain.

Mr. Hynd: I know, but it is not a very good advertisement for the pilot plots and it was the same lack of rain which hon. Members opposite suggested in the last Debate was a figment of the Government's imagination in order to get them out of difficulty.
There was a serious lack of rain which upset not only the groundnut scheme, but also every farmer in Eastern and Central Africa, and all the estimates made in those regions. But it is an interesting, and, unfortunately, a serious thing, that these promising experiments in sunflowers have failed at Kongwa. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, if he can give us a little more information as to the kind of development which the Government anticipate can be pressed forward in the vast area that has been cleared at Kongwa.
As far as the Southern Province is concerned, we are, of course, only at the beginning there. The results of the partial


harvest which has taken place are not at all bad. In 1949, we were getting 270 lb. an acre of sunflower, and this year we are getting 400 lb. That is not bad progress. The same with groundnuts. We got 530 lb. as against the 750 lb. anticipated, but when we consider the variety of experiments and treatments which had to be carried out in order to discover which were the best, the 530 lb. cannot be regarded as a bad start. The position at Urambo regarding groundnuts seems to be similarly promising. What is to be done at Kongwa is something to which everyone wants an answer, and it may be possible for the Government to give us some indication as to the way in which their minds are working on that particular point. For instance, is there any possibility, according to the knowledge we have of that area, of developing grass or ranching there? If not, what alternative proposals have the Government to suggest?
I do not want to go into the old controversy, which I would have done had not interruptions taken up so much time, about this scheme having to be commercially sound. That really is ridiculous. We had it from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, who suggested that this scheme must go forward on a commercially sound basis. I think that suggestion has come from other hon. Members, also. We cannot discuss large-scale developments on a purely commercial basis.
In the Colonial Affairs Debate last week, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Frederic Harris), made an interesting speech in which he suggested that in Kongwa, in particular, the Government ought to undertake the public works and the railways. I do not know whether he was suggesting that we should provide the farming implements, build the fences, provide the seed and the fertilisers, and do everything up to sending a cheque for the profits to the absentee landlord in this country. It is the old capitalist idea that if there are no profits to be made, the Government should do the job, but when there are profits to be made it should be left to private enterprise. I do not accept that for a moment. However, I agree that we cannot go on leaving tremendous schemes of this kind to private enterprise and relying on them to

carry them out, because they would never do so.
Central and East Africa are overcrowded with examples of wasted opportunities, of undeveloped and unexploited wealth because no private person or group of persons is prepared to go in with sufficient capital and take the risk of building the necessary communications and everything else. Up in the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda there is a copper mine, but owing to the lack of any reasonable road, canal or river transport between there and Lake Victoria several companies who have tried to exploit the mine have had to give it up. The cost of laying a railway in 1946 was some £4,000 odd a mile, and the total cost came to about £5 million. It was seriously suggested at that time by the company exploiting the copper mine that they would have to give it up unless the Government built a railway up to this remote spot for no other purpose than to enable the mine to function. That might have been worth doing, and probably will be worth doing in due course, but it meant throwing away £5 million of the taxpayers' money in order to enable a private group of people to exploit the mine.

Mr. G. B. Craddock: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me—

Mr. Hynd: What, again?

Mr. Craddock: There is a road straight from Kampala up to the mine. They can get the copper down to railhead at Kampala quite easily.

Mr. Hynd: Do not let us discuss the geography of the thing. I am merely saying that I was told by the people developing the mine that there was no adequate road down to Lake Victoria, that there was no railway of any kind, and no canal or river facilities.

Mr. Craddock: As I understand it, the hon. Member is making a case against private enterprise. He says that there is no proper road down which to bring the copper to Lake Victoria. Do I understand that that is what the hon. Member is saying, because, if so, that is not correct? There is a main road from the railhead at Kampala up to that copper mine, and the reason it has not been developed is because there is not sufficient copper there.

Mr. Hynd: I have travelled on the road from Kampala to the copper mine, and it is not a very good road. The reasons I have given were the reasons given to me by the people responsible for working the mine. They are not the first people who have been there and tried to exploit the mine. All over the territory, as hon. Members know, there are these cases of hidden or potential sources of tremendous value; in Southern Tanganyika there are examples of coal seams, and so on, which have not been developed owing to the lack of communications. That was the burden of the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Croydon. North, in the Colonial Debate.
My plea is that if we are not to develop these parts—taking a national point of view—until we are sure that we can earn an early profit after laying roads, railways, harbours, and everything else, then we are not going to get anywhere. The feature of this scheme is the importance of its contribution to providing precisely those services and facilities which have been lacking in these territories for so long and at last making it possible to open them up to the advantage, above all, of the Africans, and, ultimately, of course, to the advantage of other people in the world.
Unless that is done—and this is where the book-keeping and profit argument becomes completely useless—it will not be profit we will have made or a loss that we will have avoided. We will, in fact, have denied the whole of the arguments that have been used from all sides of this Committee, and are being used in the American Congress and Senate today and all over the democratic world. Those arguments are that unless and until we are prepared to assist people in the backward territories to build up some kind of decent standard of life, to open up their territories and provide some alternative to the appeal of Communism, then we are not only going to lose these territories altogether but the civilisation for which we stand.
That is the whole purpose of Marshall Aid, which does not earn a profit for America. It was one of the incidental purposes of the U.N.R.R.A. scheme. It is one of the reasons for the Atlantic Pact. It is one of the resons why the Americans today, and most people in this country, are urging the need for providing

quick and big-scale developments in some of the Eastern territories, in Malaya, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Indo-China and in Korea. This is the need to assist those people, through large-scale intervention with all the advantages, facilities, raw materials and money we have in this country, to make it possible to build up for them some kind of alternative to the main menace that is hanging over not only these territories but the whole world today.
I therefore hope that what the Minister said today does not mean he is going too slow. I hope he is going forward with big ideas, with all the advantages of the experiments we have made, and the failures we have had, the successes we have had, not only in Queensland but also the successes we have had in East Africa, although they may have been less than some of the failures. I hope the Minister is going forward on that scale, and with all the impetus and inspiration which his predecessor showed in undertaking what has been, in fact, one of the most courageous and greatest experiments ever made in the colonial history of this country.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Jennings: At the outset I must say that I cannot claim to have any scientific knowledge with regard to these schemes in Africa. Therefore, I do not propose to attempt in any way to tell the people out there how to do the job; but there are one or two matters that I feel I ought to bring to the Committee's attention.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Member make clear which people he is speaking about?

Mr. Jennings: If the hon. Member has heard this Debate, he will have heard quite a lot of speeches telling people how to do the job.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member speaking about the white settlers or about the indigenous inhabitants of the territory?

Mr. Jennings: I am afraid the hon. Member is barking up the wrong tree. I am not talking about colonial people at all. I am talking about people in this country. Therefore, his intervention was to no purpose. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) very closely. He said, quite


properly, that colonial development must not be run on the basis that it is run under private enterprise at a profit. I agree with that view, but I should like to point out to him the other side of the case, which is that when we are attempting some colonial development it should not be made the opportunity of shovelling out millions of money just for the purpose of spending money.
The hon. Member also said that the question of exact accounting was a matter of secondary moment. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) said the same thing. He said that accounting could become a fetish. I think it would be wrong for any hon. Member of any party in this Committee to treat the question of accounting public funds as being of secondary importance. We have a public duty here, and the utmost care must be taken of all expenditure. Expenditure should be carefully recorded, and we should see that there is no unnecessary expenditure. It is quite a wrong idea for hon. Members to belittle any accounting system or to suggest that the question of accounting does not matter and that it is carried to the extent of being a fetish. I say without hesitation that the accounting of public money is of first-rate importance.
I listened to the Minister's speech, and I appreciated the fairness and open-mindness with which he faced this problem. When I heard him describing the steps he was taking to put things right, when he said that he was sending out a working party, and that certain steps were being taken to clear up the accounting system, I could not help feeling that the whole of his speech was an indictment of the previous Minister of Food, the present Secretary of State for War.
It has been said that we must not bring party politics into this discussion. I agree with that, to some extent, but the fact that we should not bring party politics into it must not lead us to lack courage and be afraid to place the blame where it is due. When the present Secretary of State for War, as Minister of Food, was answering Questions and discussing this scheme, I always took the view that he looked upon it more or less as his personal adventure, and did not listen to any advice and seek any help. In fact, in the evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, it was said that the

Minister took the view that it had to be carried on in a headlong manner. What does a headlong manner mean? First, it was to be a military operation, and then it was to be carried on in a headlong manner, according to the previous Minister's view.
If that is the attitude towards this scheme, is it any wonder that we get to the fabulous figure of £35 million expenditure? There was this idea that the scheme had to be carried on in this way, this view that, "There is plenty of money, turn on the tap and spend money irrespective of where it comes from." The British taxpayer will not grouse if he gets value for money, but what the British people and the taxpayers of this country feel about this scheme is that there has been a terrific wastage of millions of pounds upon it. It has gone on in a headlong manner. There has not been proper care and supervision.
Let hon. Members look at the scandalous report we had about the accounting system. The hon. Member for Reading, South suggested that the reason we did not get accountants and executives to do the clerical work was because the Opposition had criticised the scheme so much that they would not take a job under the Corporation.

Mr. Holmes: The hon. Member is talking about the accountancy, and he mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. Will he have in mind what was said by a representative of Cooper Bros. about the accountancy before the Corporation took over?

Mr. Jennings: Yes I agree that is quite a fair point. My point about the accountancy system is that it is the responsibility of the Minister. He is just as much responsible for this scheme as the skipper is responsible for a ship which goes to sea and founders. What have we got? So far, we have Sir Leslie Plummer out and the former Minister of Food promoted to be Secretary of State for War. I think that is a bad deal so far as the country is concerned. In view of this complete failure, which it has been, I think it is a bad deal. I want to get the right perspective in considering colonial development and the production of food for this country; but, even if we take it in the right perspective, I still say that £35 million is a very substantial sum


to pay for what we have received at present.
I welcome very much the Minister's suggestions. I believe he is in earnest and I believe he understands that there have been a good many faults in this system, apart from the bad and over-optimistic estimates. It is true that we had overoptimistic estimates but, apart from that, equipment was purchased and was found to be unsuitable. The faults in accounting and storekeeping could have been remedied, in my opinion, had there been supervision by the Ministry and, I maintain, by the Minister long before the sad tale which we heard when the Report was issued.

Mr. J. Hynd: The Minister should have done, then, what the hon. Member tells us we should not do—tell the people on the spot how to do the job?

Mr. Jennings: It is not necessary to teach Africans or any of them out there how to keep books. Surely the man who occupies the position of Minister of Food should know the necessity of bookkeeping on a £35 million scheme. I think the Minister had a grave responsibility and that he has slid out of it as beautifully as he often does from many of these things. I think he has not accepted full responsibility. That is one of the difficulties; the general public feel that they have been "sold a pup" in this respect and that the responsible Minister, instead of doing what Sir Leslie Plummer did, has been promoted to another office. The British public will not take that sort of thing continually.
I welcome the Minister's working party. The scheme involves millions of pounds and I hope the working party will view it in the right perspective. If the scheme is to be greatly reduced because it is not economic from the point of view of food or because there is not to be the colonial development which we anticipated, then I hope the working party and all its members will take their courage into their hands and report fully to the Minister, and that there will be no saving of faces. Let us withdraw to a much smaller scale; in the end I am sure we shall do far better. I welcome the action which the Minister has taken and the steps he proposes to take. I listened to him very earnestly and I wish

him well in putting this scheme on to a proper economic and colonial development footing.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps I may deal with one point raised by the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) in which he mentioned the phrase "headlong manner." As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he knows as well as I do that a great discussion centred around this question during the examination of the witnesses and I think it is as well that we should have on record exactly what happened. The hon. Member for Hallam said that it was only right that a captain should be responsible for what happens on his ship. If we keep it on that level, no heat need be engendered. The phrase which occurred in the Report about proceeding in headlong manner was used by Mr. Faure, then the managing director of the managing agency, and he did not seek to escape from it, because during the evidence taken by the Public Accounts Committee he said:
I gave it as my opinion (may I say the word 'headlong' does not matter) that the decision to proceed in that manner was fully justified. That was my opinion which I put to the Ministry in reviewing the operation of the first year, and I believe the Minister accepted that opinion. In any case he did not indicate disagreement.
So that Mr. Faure did not seek to go back on his opinion—that opinion being to proceed "in headlong manner." I hope to say something further about that in the course of my speech.

Mr. Jennings: My idea in raising the subject was that I thought the Minister himself might have obtained a clear explanation of what was meant by carrying on "in headlong manner" and because it was a peculiar phrase to use in connection with a scheme of this nature.

Mr. Hoy: That may be so and Mr. Faure himself, replying to a question from the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), said that he rather regretted using that expression and that what he was attempting to convey was that the urgency of the situation demanded that all speed should be made. I accepted that explanation and I thought all members of the Public Accounts Committee accepted it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Farnham is not here, because he said two things with which I disagree. He seemed to belittle the part played by the Public Accounts Committee in this Report. Like the hon. Member for Hallam, I believe it is the duty of all Members of Parliament, and certainly it is the duty of members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, to examine every item of Government expenditure so as to ensure that the taxpayer is getting the best value for his money. I must say that it was not very encouraging to hear another member of the Public Accounts Committee say here, "After all, we do not need to pay too great attention to what they have been saying."
I also took exception to his statement, which I thought was in utterly bad taste, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War attempted to mislead the House when he said that there had been a progressive fall in the expenditure on the scheme. The hon. Member for Farnham sought to imply that this was not so. One has to take that statement and put it alongside the statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Minister that in the course of the past 12 months the expenditure on the scheme has been falling until it is now 50 per cent. of what it was a year ago. In view of those facts and figures—and the Minister can either correct or deny them in his reply—I suggest it is wrong for the hon. Member for Farnham—and it is something of which he is not usually guilty—to use an example of that kind. I regard it as so serious that if the Parliamentary Secretary states tonight that the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War were correct, then in all common decency the hon. Member for Farnham should rise and apologise to the Secretary of State for War and to this Committee.

Mr. Jennings: Will the hon. Member tell the Commmittee what the hon. Member for Farnham said, because I have no recollection of it?

Mr. Hoy: He gave two instances in which he said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had told deliberate untruths. One of those was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd). Secondly, the hon. Member for Farnham spoke of expenditure and said that the

House had been misled by a reply in the latter part of last year. The figures show that expenditure has fallen by 50 per cent. over the last 12 months.

Mr. F. Harris: No; that is not so.

Mr. Hoy: It was stated by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech today. What I am saying is that he is either right or wrong. If the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, states that he is correct, then the hon. Member for Farnham should apologise. If the Minister has been wrong, then the Parliamentary Secretary ought to correct it when he winds up the Debate.

Mr. Harris: I think the real truth is that the expenditure is 50 per cent. of what it was six months ago, not 12 months ago. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that is correct.

Mr. Hoy: In any case, there has been that very substantial fall in expenditure, which my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War explained when he last replied on behalf of the Ministry of Food.
I now want to refer to two points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). He was quoting some questions asked by the Select Committee in dealing with the position of our butter and fats supply as at 1948, and he said that in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Food had stated that our position was not quite so bad as was envisaged in 1946-47. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to have completed the story, because the Permanent Secretary said in completion of that answer to Question 1333:
I still frankly regard the position on oils and fats as a matter of some anxiety.
The further question was put to him "You do still?" and he replied:
As late as 1948 the total amount of oils and fats exported was only about 3.8 million tons as against 6 million tons before the war and with the pressure of world population and the decline in Far Eastern exports I still think that our position is a relatively vulnerable one.
He did say that he felt it was still serious, and that it was because of that that these steps had to be taken.
Many questions have been asked about why all these things should take place, and about the origins of the scheme. Let


me briefly remind hon. Members of what actually happened, and why certain decisions were taken, especially the one about proceeding "in headlong manner." The hon. Member for Hallam will remember that when this scheme originated, the world's fats and oils supply position was extremely precarious, and it was felt by all that something rather drastic would have to be done to remedy that position. So much was that so that in 1946 Britain was short of what it needed to the extent of an equivalent of 11 million tons of groundnuts; and when one remembers that Britain was importing 95 per cent. of the oils and fats she used one can readily understand the difficult position it which we found ourselves.
In March, 1946, Mr. Frank Samuel was flying over this particular part of Africa, and he saw this virgin land. He thought that this was the real answer to our prayer, he reported it to the Ministry of Food, and recommended that a scheme of the magnitude of 2,600,000 acres should be undertaken to produce the oils and fats that were so necessary. I think he gave the best advice he possibly could. The Ministry, as the Report shows, agreed to examine the scheme because they felt there was a great deal in it. Following on that, the Government recommended that a mission should go out, and that further exploration should take place. Now we hear a tremendous lot about experts, but sometimes experts can be misleading. The Wakefield Mission consisted of Mr. Wakefield, who has a pretty fair reputation in these matters, Mr. Rosa of the Colonial Office, and Mr. Martin of the United Africa Company.
No one can doubt Mr. Martin's claim to be regarded as an expert because this afternoon the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) said that if we wanted an expert to go out, even now he would recommend Mr. Martin. It ought to be remembered also that, while Mr. Samuel had said it would be reasonable to undertake a scheme covering 2,600,000 acres, Mr. Martin. one of the so-called experts, Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Rosa recommended that the scheme should be much larger, that it should be 3,750,000 acres. The hon. Member for Newbury will now have to revise his opinion of what constitutes an expert. because in the next breath he

said it was sheer nonsense to talk about having a scheme of 3¼ million acres, 2½ million acres, or even 600,000 acres.
We ought to bear in mind that these schemes were the result of advice tendered to the Minister of Food by people who were reputed to have a very wide experience in this type of land clearance and development, and it was on their advice that the Minister and the scheme proceeded. In view of the tremendous urgency it was then decided, not by the Minister of Food, not by the British Overseas Food Corporation, but by the managing agency that they ought to proceed "in headlong manner." The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said in opening the Debate this afternoon, that nothing had been learned from it. Well, even here we get a difference of opinion, because on page 10 of the Report of the Overseas Food Corporation the experts say:
The Managing Agency in submitting its report to the Minister of Food on its first year's work said: 'If this year's achievements were to be measured solely by acreage planted, the results would not only be disappointing, but even discouraging. Such an inference would, however, be ill-founded, since it would ignore the major accomplishments of this period. The decision to proceed immediately and in headlong manner on an improvised basis has been amply justified by the valuable experience gained, by the acquisition of heavy clearing equipment and other materials which would no longer have been available in later years, and most of all by the establishment during this year of an organisation with the requisite specialist branches and with a knowledge of the type and scope of the problems to he encountered'.
That is the opinion of the managing agency as expressed to the Minister of Food, and if we are to have the opinion of experts, I suppose that Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Martin must rank as experts in this regard.

Sir J. Mellor: Referring to the expression The decision to proceed immediately and in headlong manner," in answer to Question 1998 on page 89, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Food, giving evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, said:
Those words, if I may say so. are the words of Mr. Faure. but the decision—as I was seeking to say—that the plan should proceed on the basis and on the tempo laid down in Command 7030 was a decision of the Government; it was not an independent decision taken by the managing agents, and the Ministry of Food must take responsibility for that decision.

Mr. Hoy: With all respect, I did not seek to differ from that opinion. The hon. Baronet was not here at the time I was replying to his hon. Friend the Member for Hallam. The hon. Member was arguing that the captain must be responsible for all that happened on the ship. I said that I did not demur from that opinion but that it was only right to point out that the opinion itself was tendered to the Minister of Food by the managing agency, but that neither the Minister nor the Ministry seek to throw the responsibility on to someone else. With all respect to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), I made that point nearly a quarter of an hour ago.

Sir J. Mellor: The point is not that the Ministry have accepted responsibility but that in the words I have read out the decision that the plan should proceed on the basis and at the tempo laid down in the Command Paper was a decision of the Government.

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry if I am not making myself clear, but I thought that what I said was plain to anyone who wishes to understand—that that was the opinion and advice tendered to the Minister of Food by the United Africa Company, which was acting as the managing agency. The Minister of Food accepted that advice and acted on it, and he does not seek in any way to throw the responsibility for that decision upon the managing agency or upon anyone else employed by it.
It is true to say that the members-designate of the Corporation, because they had had some contact with the actual work that was going ahead were, by 1947. a little perturbed at what was taking place. One has to remember that the Overseas Food Corporation took over the responsibility for the scheme before the intended time because they felt that urgent decisions had to be made and that the divided responsibility was good neither for the Overseas Food Corporation, the managing agency nor the people employed in this scheme.
A great deal of money, running into many millions of pounds, had been spent by the managing agency. I am not seeking to blame the managing agency for that having happened. In view of the very short supply of materials and tools and equipment which were necessary, the managing agency were compelled to go outside to buy from the disposal boards

in Egypt and elsewhere, and frequently had to buy in lots a great deal of which they could not use when it reached the groundnut scheme.
It was as a result of all this that they fell down on their accountancy. Let there be no mistake that, while not blaming the managing agency, the Report makes it perfectly clear that the managing agency must accept a great share of the responsibility for the bad system of accountancy, for the lack of price fixing, etc. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield can bear me out when I say that the members of the United Africa Company who appeared before the Select Committee, agreed, with one slight exception, with these four very serious statements made on page 10 of the Report of the Overseas Food Corporation about the conditions under which the Overseas Food Corporation took over. It was only after the Overseas Food Corporation had taken over that a recommendation was made to the Minister about a change in the size of the programme.
Sir Leslie Plummer has received much criticism. but I think that every hon. Member who sat on the Public Accounts Committee was impressed by his honesty, integrity and good intentions. Not one member who was on the Public Accounts Committee would demur from that statement. Sir Leslie, with his Board, took the steps which they felt to be necessary. It may be that there may be some ground for complaint that they did not go into the question of accountancy and the building up of a sufficient staff of accountants soon enough. They may be responsible for that, but it was only when they took over that at least some sense of reality entered into the situation. There were some differences about how this scheme should be cut down. The Overseas Food Corporation submitted a further scheme to the Minister of Food which was rejected.
They are now working on the new plan, which I understand has been accepted, which covers 600,000 acres. I hope to see this scheme a success. Tremendous political heat has been engendered. I do not think that I can be accused even this evening of importing any political heat into the arena. I think that a great deal of uninformed opinion has been expressed about the scheme. There are far too many African experts who, as we found out in the course


of our inquiries, know very little about Africa. I think that the Government selected people with some knowledge of the subject. It may be that their estimates were all wrong, but if the Ministry and the present Secretary of State for War have to accept some responsibility, let us in all fairness remember that my right hon. Friend acted on the advice which he received from the members of the Wakefield Mission, the United Africa Company and the so-called experts of the day.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I must congratulate back benchers opposite on the gallant fight they are putting up. But no one can swim the Channel with one's feet shackled to two lumps of lead. We are so close to hon. Gentlemen that we can see their tongues thrust firmly in their cheeks.
The Minister wisely talks not about the past but about the future, but hon. Gentlemen behind him have tried to lay the blame on everybody; first on the Wakefield Commission, then on the managing agency, then on the Conservative Opposition and then on someone who did not take the rainfall statistics in Africa years ago. Why not go back to Cecil Rhodes and Prester John? The truth is that one man only is responsible in the sight of this Parliament, and that is the Secretary of State for War who should have been here today to listen to the inquest on his own failure.
The groundnut scheme has been the most monumental flop since the South Sea Bubble. We are going into the past only so far as examination of the past is profitable to try to decide what we are to do for the future. We can draw two lessons from it. The first is the danger of embarking upon a grandiose scheme without proper investigation. The second is that if we waste money in one direction we cannot spend it on something else. Every pound that has been wasted on this scheme has been a pound which ought to have been and could have been spent on something else. I would challenge one or two hon. Members opposite who have called this a colonial development scheme. It was not such a scheme and it was never put to this House as such. It was put to the House as a scheme for growing

groundnuts to provide fats for the people of this country.
Had it been a colonial development scheme we should not have spent the money in that way in that place. We should not have spent it in the way in which we have spent it at Kongwa. Not only have we done no good there, but we may possibly have done harm There is a great danger that Kongwa may become a dust bowl. In other words, this is no longer a development scheme of any sort; it has got very nearly to the stage of what. I would call a salvage project.
But the only point to which I wish to refer in this Debate is the spending of money. Let all Members of the Committee be equally vigilant on this point. Why try to excuse a waste of money when we know that it has been thrown down the drain? Every pound that has been spent on this scheme could have been spent on schools, hospitals and irrigation schemes in the Colonies. When the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) talks about saving tropical areas from Communism, I would point out that we do not save them by failures but by schemes that are a success. Who is better off in East Africa as a result of spending all this money? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has raised. perhaps a little prematurely, the question of how much of this £38 million will have to be written off. In my opinion, it will be somewhere near £30 million. In other words, when we come to the final accounts we shall find that £30 million has irrevocably gone down the drain.
Why do not Members opposite, instead of defending this expenditure, ask themselves what they could have done in their constituencies with £30 million in terms of hospitals, schools and houses? Why do they not take that into account when they speak from platforms in their constituencies at week-ends? I have worked it out, and I find that it would build enough houses for the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), including one for himself, and in Chelsea, Chelmsford, Crewe, or Swindon. We should have built enough houses for all these people. To put it in another way, this £30 million would have built a new satellite town—perhaps we should call it the "Lost city of Stracheyville."
The right hon. Gentleman has taken the right line by talking about the future and ignoring the past. I can assure him that, in so far as he keeps a sense of reality and realises that it is public money which is being spent at a time when every penny of our resources has to be husbanded, he will receive, and rightly so. the support of Members on this side.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I do not wish to detain the Committee long, because I realise that many Members still wish to speak. I have been present at three groundnut Debates, and I have wondered where we shall eventually get. We have achieved a certain amount of success from these Debates, and I should like to touch on one or two points that arise from them. We must all remember that the conception of the scheme and the ideas behind it were inspired as much by romantic ideas as anything else. Unfortunately, as we all realise, through indifferent practical knowledge there was no serious opposition to it when it was brought forward, although I am sure we all agree that many people had doubts about it.
I would remind Members that at that time we were short of margarine and not so very short of money. But, today, people have quite a lot of margarine and very little money. The critics of the scheme at that time would, quite rightly, have been accused of being opposed to Empire development. I was one of those who supported the scheme in principle from the start, because I realised that it provided a chance to utilise some of the waste land of Africa and to improve and raise the standard of living generally of many of the Africans themselves. It is possible, of course, to criticise many aspects of the scheme—the clearing targets, low morale of the staff, the provision of accommodation for married people, prices of commodities, bad recruitment of proper technicians, the use of imperfect machinery and insufficient maintenance, the lack of financial control, and the really shockingly bad buying which has gone on during the handling of the whole scheme.
To give an illustration of the really farcical situation, I ask whether it is not correct that at present there is about 75 years' supplies of pink gin in stock and about 30 years' supplies of alcohol. If

I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will put me right, but I think I am correct in saying that on the basis of present consumption. That may seem to be attractive to some, but it is a farcical example of the kind of buying that has been taking place. I could quote cases where goods have been disposed of and, a few days later, sold at public auctions at two or three times the price. Am I entirely wrong in suggesting that at one time there was a serious suggestion of providing a roller-skating rink for the natives? I am not so very sure that I am wrong. It is a pity that some of these things are not brought to the surface, so that we can realise the nonsense which has been going on.
We have already heard that the scheme has cost £38 million, and whatever experience has been gained, has, therefore, been gained at very great expense. I ask the Minister to do his utmost to make it clear to the sincere workers on the scheme that they can expect fair treatment from the Government whatever may transpire. That is absolutely vital if we are to go on with this scheme. Can he give some indication of the number of resignations among the lower officials, which is very disturbing? There are very few of the original leading lights left. I know that new brooms are always welcome, but experience of past errors must not be overlooked.
I am one of those who has constantly been putting it to the House that I can see no reason why this scheme should be controlled by the Minister of Food. But if it has to be controlled by the Minister of Food, I say, quite frankly, that I am only too pleased that it is the present Minister and not the recent Minister, for the reasons so many Members have already mentioned. If the scheme has to go on under the present arrangement, I wish the Minister well in the efforts he is going to put into it.
This is undoubtedly a colonial scheme. Let us bring a sense of proportion to the matter. Nothing can surprise an African native more than to realise that he is working for the Minister of Food. It is absolutely ridiculous for an African native to contemplate that, when he should, of course, be working for the Colonial Office if it is a Government scheme. Everyone in Africa looks forward to the time when the responsibility will be transferred to the Colonial Secretary. We have never got


any satisfaction in regard to this suggestion we have made on many occasions. For myself, I am not very happy about this working party. I feel it would have been far better to have had more independent consideration of this scheme. I would put it to Members that to a certain extent the present working party is merely a case of wheels within wheels. We really need a body of expert business men to act as a jury on this scheme, which bears no relation to the original ideas.
The morale of the men can never be sustained unless they can have a definite target at which to aim. I hope the Minister will make it abundantly clear to all concerned just how far he expects them to go. They do not know exactly what they are trying for, and there is complete misunderstanding of the idea of the scheme. It is vitally important that the people in the scheme should be told by the Minister, "This is a target we are expecting of you. Now go ahead and try to achieve it." By now we must have had enough experience of all the troubles that can befall a scheme of this kind to be able to plan ahead for a successful target.
I would very seriously suggest—and this thing is quite typical of the African—that every effort to run the scheme must be made by the people on the spot. It is hopeless to think that any real business enterprise in Africa can be controlled from London. It cannot be done. Things are happening day by day, and it is vitally important that the people on the spot should have complete freedom to take appropriate action, and that people should be sent out there to achieve it.
The scheme up to the present has, unfortunately, done little to raise the prestige of European administrators amongst the natives of East Africa. I do not think that the natives of East Africa have much respect for the European administrators in this particular scheme. Indeed, I would conclude by saying it has shattered the hopes of many brave and courageous men and women, who have worked under tremendous hardships for the sake of our Empire.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: As far as possible I shall seek to keep clear of the polemics of this Debate. I intervene

merely to put a point of view which so far has not been put, and to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend which I hope is not too late. In the course of the Debate there have been many comments and interventions and some very caustic remarks, but an intervention which I missed during the Debate was the criticism, which might have been priceless, of the African farmer, who is perhaps the one silent listener throughout this afternoon's discourse while the white man proceeds with his old policy of deciding what is to be done with the black man's native country.
I agree that we have all shown the very best of intentions. We are very anxious to help and I was interested to hear those hon. Gentlemen who proposed the appointment of commissions with all sorts of experts to go out to Africa to inquire what was wrong, because none of them ever suggested that any of the African farmers on the spot might know a great deal more about farming conditions in Africa than any of the experts here, and that one, at least, of these farmers might figure on one of the commissions. Was it because of the fact that most of them are thought to be incapable of doing this type of work? They have been so long dependent on us that they are losing confidence in themselves.
Three or four years ago we sent out to East Africa a commission consisting of two distinguished citizens of this country; men who are scientists. I have tried on various occasions in the House to have their report published. I have been told that the report is for the information of the Minister. One of the gentlemen who went out on that commission has assured me privately that we are creating in that part of Africa, which we are discussing today, a dependent civilisation, which is a totally wrong thing to do.
We are so anxious to help and we are spending so much on helping people that we are not giving sufficient opportunity and chance to the Africans to do something for themselves. I have never heard from the opposite side of the Committee any suggestion that we might approach the problem from the point of view of letting the African do something for himself. We have no reason to assume he could not, because in Northern Nigeria he is doing the things there for the production of groundnuts that we have been


lamenting this afternoon are not being done in East Africa. If we want to grow these nuts why not take a leaf out of our book at home?
In this country we wanted food and we said to the farmers that we would give them a guaranteed market, guaranteed price, seeds, fertilisers and implements, and we promised that we would do all we could to help them. Having done that we, as a Government told the farmers to go ahead and get the food. That worked. Is there any reason to suppose that that could not be done in East Africa if we followed a similar policy there? It is not too late perhaps to cut some of our losses so far as the particular method of approach is concerned, and go ahead and apply in East Africa a policy which we have seen to be successful in Northern Nigeria as well as in our own country.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Mr. W. Fletcher rose—

Mr. Rankin: I do not mind giving way in the least, but I have sat most of the day and I hope I shall close in sufficient time to allow the hon. Member to say a word. Instead, we have been following the policy of pouring white settlers into East Africa. We are seeking to carry out a white policy and are backing it up by encouraging the white men to settle in Tanganyika, East Africa and Northern Rhodesia. We want to ensure the permanent control of the indigenous African by a tiny white majority.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the hon. Member suggesting that all Scotsmen should equally go back to Scotland from this country?

Mr. Rankin: What a tragedy that would be for England. It is sheer pity that keeps us here.
In East Africa. we have been pursuing the policy of seeking to draw white settlers there in order to maintain racial supremacy over the indigenous inhabitants. There are no cheers for that from the other side of the Committee, because hon. Members know that that point is perfectly true.

Mr. G. B. Craddock: No.

Mr. Rankin: The trouble is that that policy is sending up the cost of the scheme. When the white man goes out he demands schools, hospitals. dwelling-places and social services such as we

never dream of giving to the African. That is certain to inflate the losses which hon. Members opposite have been criticising so strongly today. If my right hon. Friend were to cut some of those losses he would hear an ever bigger howl from the opposite benches.
When my right hon. Friend opened the Debate he said that the groundnut scheme must go forward as a form of colonial development in its widest sense. I would bring to the recollection of the Committee the speech made by the predecessor of my right hon. Friend during, I think it was, the Third Reading of the Bill. He went a little further and said—he more or less committed the House of Commons to this statement—that this scheme was designed ultimately to pass into the control of the Africans themselves. They are to control the scheme. I hope that that will not be forgotten. If that is to be the case, and if this is a scheme of colonial development in its widest sense, then I say, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, that it ought to be transferred to the administration of the Colonial Office.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Braine: I join with other hon. Members in saying how much I welcomed the Minister's reasoned, cautious, and realistic approach at the opening of the Debate. But it was no more than an approach—I think he called it "an interim statement"—and there was nothing he said which removed the necessity for frank speaking. Indeed, if I were in any doubt whether to speak frankly it would be removed by the speeches of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) in which they attempted, not altogether successfully, to shuffle off responsibility from the late Minister of Food on to other shoulders.
I have been somewhat surprised to find no reference in the whole Debate to the White Paper which was laid before the House in February, 1947, and which is quoted in the Report of the Overseas Food Corporation for 1948-49. I find in this Report these words:
The Government's view contained in this document was that the scheme is a practicable plan for alleviating the world shortage of fats, which is likely to last for many years; that it is agriculturally sound; that, subject to reasonable assumptions, it involves no unjustifiable financial risk; that labour difficulties


can be overcome … and that it could prove of great benefit to the African populations as well as to the people of the United Kingdom.
There is no doubt, therefore, where the responsibility lies.
The groundnut scheme in its inception was novel, and seized the imagination. The world had never known anything like it before. There were bound to be mistakes in its execution. It would be fair to say that we on this side of the Committee do not make complaints that mistakes were made. We are complaining that the mistakes were covered up. We are complaining that those responsible—in particular, I name the late Minister of Food—never took it upon themselves to place the full facts before the people of this country or to take the House into their confidence. The Minister of Food and his predecessor are the sole persons who have had the power to extract from the Overseas Food Corporation the necessary information and to exact from them the proper performance of their duties.
I complain less of the blunders that have been committed, such as the fact that millions could have been saved at Kongwa if proper surveys of the soil and the availability of water had been carried out before the scheme was started, or of mistakes in what the Americans call the "logistics" of the scheme. Clearly, land has to be cleared, tractors assembled, workers trained, houses, railways and harbours constructed before groundnuts can be harvested.
What I complain about is that, repeatedly, the men on the spot advised the Overseas Food Corporation of the difficulties. There was Professor Phillips, for example, an eminent soil scientist, who has been connected with the scheme for some time. He flew to London some time in 1948 and gave certain advice to the Board of the Overseas Food Corporation. That advice was rejected. Is it any wonder that there was dissatisfaction among the executives, leading ultimately to resignations, and that a memorandum was presented to Sir Leslie Plummer complaining of:
Endless changes of policy. We cannot he sure that any decision taken today will not be cancelled next week.
Who was to blame for this? Sir. Leslie Plummer? Certainly, at the end of last year he had lost the confidence of his executives. That was made quite plain to

the late Minister of Food when he made his panic flight to East Africa, but he certainly covered it up on that occasion. if there ever was a plot, that was a plot. Now Sir Leslie Plummer has gone. Somebody in the course of the Debate spoke of his good intentions. Good intentions do not grow groundnuts. Sir Leslie has been handsomely rewarded for failure.
But there can be no doubt about the responsibility of the late Minister of Food. There has been some question during the Debate as to whether he misled the House with untruths. I do not know about that—I was not a Member of the House until after the General Election—but it is quite clear that at no time in the last few years has that Minister been seized of the real difficulties of the scheme or had the courage to overhaul the administration of the Overseas Food Corporation, or to take the nation into his confidence.
Perhaps his early training as a Marxist has accustomed him—I hope that no hon. Gentleman opposite will object to my saying this, for I have the authority of Mr. Morgan Phillips that the Labour Party is founded on Methodism and not Marxism—to fit the facts to the theory rather than to base the theory upon the facts. He was intellectually incapable of realising that a scheme which he had heralded in such glowing terms was not turning out as he had expected.
The second fact of importance which emerges from a study of the past is that the Overseas Food Corporation was, and is, too large, too cumbrous and too remote. The right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. Indeed, to coin a phrase the right economic decisions on the spot were repeatedly prevented by leftish political considerations at home. There is, after all, an optimum level of efficiency for any organisation beyond which the standard of efficiency declines. The administrative problem of running the groundnut scheme in East Africa has clearly been too big for those in charge.
What is to be done? It is quite clear from what has been said from both sides of the Committee that there are few who would wish the scheme to be abandoned in its entirety, and certainly not before a full inquiry has been carried out as to its prospects. I would join issue with


those who have suggested that the scheme has been a dead loss. I do not agree with that. In the main, of course, the object of the scheme was to raise groundnuts, and in that respect it has failed. But a subsidiary object was to open up hitherto inaccessible territories, and to promote the welfare and the economic health of the African inhabitants.
A great deal has been learned about bush clearance, and I do not think the importance of that has been stressed sufficiently when one bears in mind that five-sixths of the population of the Trust Territory of Tanganyika is hemmed in to one-sixth of the land surface owing to tsetse-infested bush. New harbours and railways have been constructed which will play their part no doubt in the ecomonic development, not only of East Africa but of Northern Rhodesia as well.
It is quite clear that the vast area of East Africa can never be properly opened up, and the standard of living of its inhabitants raised, until communications are developed. Tanganyika is known to be rich in mineral wealth. I was somewhat surprised not to hear anyone mention that Tanganyika already contributes one-tenth of the world's sale of diamonds, and that the new lead-silver mines at Mpanda on Lake Tanganyika, served by the same railway which serves the Kongwa region, are of great promise. Down in the south-west of the Territory there are eight proven coalfields and deposits of gold and iron ore all of which at the moment are inaccessible because of the lack of adequate communications.
I say, therefore, that if the emphasis in the future is to be upon the economic development of Tanganyika, there is a powerful case for transferring the responsibility for the Overseas Food Corporation undertakings in the Territory from the Ministry of Food to the Colonial Office. The first requirement is a full inquiry into the whole scheme.
It was suggested by one hon. Member that somebody on this side of the Committee questioned the credentials of the working party. I do not think that was in the mind of anybody. But we question the scope of the working party. As the Treasury backed the recent inquiry into the losses of the Kitchen Committee, I cannot see how in logic it

can refuse an inquiry into this larger matter—unless, of course, the Government have something to hide. I say emphatically that an inquiry is due to the men on the spot who have been labouring under the greatest difficulties, to the nation which foots the bill, and to the African inhabitants of Tanganyika for whose good government and wellbeing we in this country are ultimately responsible.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Kenyon: The Committee is indebted to the two opening speakers in this Debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) made an excellent speech, a moderate speech in view of the opportunity he undoubtedly had for justifiable criticism of the Government in this respect.
I do not join with hon. Members on this side of the Committee in sharing responsibility with hon. Members opposite. It is the Government of the day, who bring in these schemes, who are responsible for their operation, and not the Opposition. There is nothing of which the Government need be ashamed in admitting that the scheme has failed in its primary purpose. There is no dishonour in admitting failure, especially when dealing with anything of an agricultural nature. We should accept the responsibility and we should go ahead in what I consider to be undoubtedly a fine scheme. The fact that things have gone wrong does not alter the principle of the scheme at all. It may give rise to criticism for mismanagement and so forth, but the principle remains the same and we should go ahead with the scheme.
I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire expressed much practical common sense and showed a unity of purpose between the two sides of the Committee which augurs well for the future. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food seemed to me to be facing the situation in an exceptionally practical way. He recognises that what has taken place is not very palatable, but he is facing it with a realism that will justify the actions which he takes on the scheme. My right hon. Friend inherited a position in which we were deeply committed, and he is very wise to consider all the pros and cons of the whole scheme before passing final judgment.
I want to offer a word of warning to the Minister. I said on a previous occasion to his predecessor and to the then Parliamentary Secretary that when I heard them speaking on agriculture, cold shivers ran down my back. When I heard my right hon. Friend telling us today what bacon we are to have from Queensland in the future, the same thing happened. In all seriousness, I warn my right hon. Friend never to prophesy on agricultural production. Any farmer knows that that cannot safely be done. Although the crops may be ready for reaping, a month beforehand a storm may well ruin the whole lot. Similarly, flourishing herds of livestock may contract diseases, with the result that whole herds are lost. When the previous Minister of Food tolds us details of the production of groundnuts that was to come from this scheme, he indeed sent cold shivers down my spine. The plans have all gone in the air, the groundnuts have not come. No one who knows anything about agricultural production, either here or anywhere else in the world, would have made the prophecies which were made by the previous Minister of Food.
Let us admit that it is hard experience which has forced my right hon. Friend into the present position. It has forced us to a sense of reality on the whole scheme. In the breaking up of new land, either here, in Africa or elsewhere, the result is entirely unpredictable. One never knows what will be turned up by a plough. I got into some little trouble in criticising finances at the beginning of the groundnut scheme, because I pointed out that allowances had been made for breaking up, fertilising and sowing African land at the same cost per acre as in this country, where the land is far easier to work, is far more fertile, and contains moisture.
One of the main reasons why this scheme has failed is that we have had too many experts on it and too few practical farmers. I am getting afraid of experts, unless they are balanced by practical men. What is the first thing a practical farmer would have looked for in this soil? Water. Lack of water has been the drawback all the way through. It is all right for the experts to say what they are going to do and what they are going to plan, but they can never say what the earth is going to do after they have planned. On a large

scale the Ministry have simply suffered what we farmers suffer year after year on a small scale. Every farmer passes through this phase. He breaks up ground and sows crops and then perhaps nothing comes of it; something goes wrong with it, but he balances one thing with another. All that has happened to the Ministry in this respect is that on a tremendously large scale they have failed.
If circumstances had turned out in the opposite direction, and if in this waterless desert there had been a large amount of rain, as sometimes happens, the ground which had been sown with groundnuts would have been a tremendous success. The crop would have been there and we would have claimed that we were justified in what we had done. But the water was not there and, in addition, there was a drought. When there is waterless land and a drought in addition, it is just a gamble, especially in Africa.
This is now a scheme of colonial development, and as such it deserves the support of the whole Committee. We have a great responsibility to the people in our Colonies. The time has gone when we used the Colonies for exploitation only. We have a responsibility and duty to the people, and in that respect this scheme is fraught with tremendous possibilities for good. It can only be tested by continuous experiment and continuous work. A working party is now being sent out, and the Minister gave the names of its members. May I urge upon him to put on that working party more practical men? I know that he has one or two on the working party who have farmed in Africa and know the situation, but we cannot afford to have any further commission overbalanced by experts. Get some practical men on the job. In working together they will bring about results.
In any scheme of colonial development of this magnitude, one of the obligations of this Government and this nation is to educate and train the natives. I join with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) in saying that in our education of the natives of Africa we are turning out too many lawyers, and so forth. We are turning out too many theorists. In fact, we have too many in this country, let alone Africa. I sometimes think we are over-balancing our economy in this


country by carrying too many non-producers and that we shall have to face up to that situation.
Let us start on the right lines. Let us educate and train the men in Africa for the practical side of the job. Do that first and they will be the first to thank us when the result of that work is seen. Do not despise the crudeness of their methods or the primitiveness of their actions. I have lived too long among these natives to despise anything they do. These men are capable, if they get the opportunities which we have had. Train and educate them for the job and they can do it. If we go about this thing in a proper way and if we train these men for this work, I have not the slightest doubt that they will be able to succeed where white men very often fail.
I believe that there is inherent in human life and in the farmer, a certain unity of spirit, shall I say, between the development of the land and the development of the man who works upon the land. It is something that we cannot impart by education. It is something that grows through the years. That wealth of experience developed by education, and an understanding of the soil and cropping, is the long-term answer to the mastery of this hard and unkindly land.
Many crops are being tried in this area. I suggest that when the land is sufficiently fertile and has been sufficiently worked, cotton and maize should be tried. I am confident that maize will grow because I have seen it growing, and I am confident that we can grow good crops of maize on this land when it has been properly developed.
I wish to deal for a moment with Queensland. f have been in Queensland, where the scheme is now operating. While it may be a good scheme, I believe that the development of Queensland is the job of Australia. It is not our job, and Australia ought to be tackling the job in her own interests. Far too much neglect has taken place in Australia over the years, and we should not go to the rescue now. It is for Australia herself to develop this land. We can rear as many pigs and as many head of cattle here in this country as they can provide us from Queensland, if we go about the job properly.
What countries like Africa and Australia should provide cheaply—we all

talk about cheapness and though I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) is not with us, he would agree with me where cheapness of food is concerned—what these countries should grow and send to us as cheaply as possible, is fruit. They can grow fruit in abundance and fruit of all descriptions. We cannot grow the fruit which they grow in the tropics and in Queensland. If they concentrated on the growing of fruit in these areas and left the production of pigs and cattle to us, it would be to the mutual advantage of all.
I urge the Government seriously to consider placing the African part of this scheme under the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office nien—I almost used the word "experts"—are people who know both the natives and the land. It is their job to know. From what I have seen, I would say that they know far more about the land and the natives than do the men who have been dealing with this scheme. It is the work of the Colonial Office to deal with schemes like this.
In Africa we have many obligations. One of our greatest is to create conditions which will enable the African to develop in his natural way. In the fullness of time, I believe that every nation contributes in life and knowledge to that store of knowledge which is possessed by the world, its own peculiar and individual experience. In the development of their country and the enrichment of their race under wise guidance and sympathetic leadership, they will bring to the councils of the world a fellowship and a fraternity well worth the sacrifice we are now making and well worth anything that this nation can do for them.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: All hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and a large number of hon. Members opposite, agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon). I hope that he will take care to see that the relevant passages are extracted and sent to his hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), who may he elsewhere, on a featherbed, during this Debate. It is most important that the points he made should be more widely known than they appear to be.
I do not propose to take up time by making the point I should like to make


about a Minister who, in the tradition that started with the South Sea Bubble, gets rid of £35 million of the taxpayers' money. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in the course of investigating the situation in Tanganyika as it exists at the moment, he will consider getting more experienced men from the Gezira scheme in the Sudan. I have raised this point with the previous Minister of Food. I cannot find out whether any personnel have been recruited from the Sudan Plantation Syndicate for work in Tanganyika.
This is not merely a question of the mechanised production of food. This is a technical job, and these men have unequalled experience of mechanised farming in the tropics. The far wider topics of land tenure, resettlement, and so forth, are problems now emerging from this scheme, as far as it has gone. One hon. Member mentioned the desirability of involving the African more closely in this great project. It is essential for the prosperity of a scheme like this to get the African who is working on the job to feel that he has a stake in it. One hon. Member from north of the Border talked about Northern Nigeria and the result, I have always understood, of the activities of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) who, at the end of the war, by proper marketing, encouraged the Africans there to increase their output of groundnuts.
The resettlement, in the areas to be developed, of people from the overpopulated areas of East Africa is of importance. Whether Kongwa is one or not, is not immediately relevant. I would ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply whether he will consider getting people from the Sudan to study not only mechanised agriculture but also the whole question of land tenure, and so on.

9.5 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We have had an interesting Debate, and, of course, one of the Votes put down was that of the Overseas Food Corporation, so that, if any hon. Member wished to speak particularly about Queensland, it would have been within the rules of order. In fact, however, except for the Minister's allusion to it, that did not follow. Therefore, if I do not expatiate on it either, it will be understood that I want to refer

to the Debate which we have had rather than to the one which we might have had. Of course, while the Overseas Food Corporation is concerned with the Queensland affair, so is Australia, and so it is on a rather different basis from the East African scheme, in which no one else except the Corporation is concerned.
The Minister said that the month of July was a bad time for debating this particular topic. Perhaps it is; I do not know, except that we had one last July. Apart from that, I do not think that, in view of the terrific interest aroused in recent years on this important matter, it would have been right that Parliament should have broken up for the summer without any discussion of the matter at all. I think it is quite inevitable that, in a new Parliament and with a new Minister, this Debate should have taken place. It is quite true that, when it comes along, we have all these exotic names—Kongwa, Urambo, Tanganyika and all the rest—brought up, but it is also true that, while they are far-away places, we have been spending a million pounds of the taxpayers' money per month on this scheme, and, as was stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) yesterday, the total cost is now £35,750,000, and it is not surprising that the House of Commons, which represents the people and the taxpayers who have to find the money, should consider this a matter of great public interest.
Some hon. Members have spoken from the other side and have kept on saying how glad they were there was so much less political controversy in this affair. Well, we are all politicians anyway, and the matter is highly controversial. When I say the matter, I do not mean the original idea of what the people were trying to get, but the way in which it has been carried out, which I say has been very controversial. I cannot see why the House of Commons cannot discuss this matter without being blamed if political controversy intervenes. As between one party and another, it takes two sides to make a quarrel, but that has been somewhat hushed by the departure from this particular office of the Secretary of State for War.
I remember that, in the Debate last November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley),


whose continued absence we all deplore on these occasions, said that whether the Minister left or did not leave his post was a matter entirely for his own conscience, but that, so far as we were concerned, it looked as if only political dynamite would move him. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has found some political dynamite, but only a small amount, which did not blow the right hon. Gentleman very far down Whitehall, though it was effective as far as the Ministry of Food was concerned. So we all have looked with interest to proper development of this affair, and the very thing that was demanded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, as hon. Members will see if they look at column 72 of that Debate, was that the scheme would benefit by the resignation of its Chairman. That has now come about, and I notice that the Minister did not appear to shed any tears of regret about that, for he never mentioned his name.
I do not want to go over the whole of the past. In the previous Parliament, I spoke several times on this matter, and we have had it reviewed, particularly by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy), who went into the whole history of the matter. But my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who so admirably opened the Debate from this Box, used the words that the past history—I think he was quoting, but I still think they might be repeated—was one of going from procrastination to prevarication, and from evasion to equivocation, and I think we have had a good deal of proof of that today.
The Minister opened this Debate in a most sweet, reasonable and moderate way. Everything in future was to be firmly grounded in reality. That is a good thing. It has not been so in the past. He said that the original purpose of the fats was no longer any good. That is how I jotted it down. Anyhow, it was to that effect, that the original conception of producing a large amount of fats for our benefit had gone, and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) wisely dotted the i's and crossed the t's of that. It is a brave agricultural expert who tries to lay down, not only months ahead, but years ahead, what the crop is going to be.
It is true that the fats situation in the world has changed since this scheme was

inaugurated. In fact, last year the world production had caught up with pre-war production, and this year—if, again, I may make a guess at production after what the hon. Gentleman has said—the experts estimate that, all being well, there will be something like 1,200,000 tons more than before the war. I grant all the business about the rising population of the world, but, even so, we seem to be, as far as this country is concerned, reasonably happy about the general situation of both edible and vegetable oils because, after all, the Minister has announced the forthcoming abolition of soap rationing, which is one of the matters which come into this problem.
But having said that, the Minister then says that the main object of the scheme is colonial development. Of course, it was not that at the start, and, what is more, it is not yet. The right hon. Gentleman as the new Minister may Christen this as his new baby and give it another name, but it is not a colonial development scheme at all at present. I wish it might become something of that sort. We have always said that we hoped that, in its widest aspect, that is where it would end up. It is for that reason that the Opposition have always asked that the Colonial Office should be put in charge of the scheme. I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken from the Government side in that matter.
After all, if it is to be a colonial development scheme, we must know what is envisaged and how it is to be done. If we are going to spend these vast amounts of money in Tanganyika, in particular, there must be some prospect of some return, and there must be some people. Let the Committee never forget that one of the prime reasons why this area—which has turned out to be so unsatisfactory in many ways—was selected, was that there were no people there. It was decided to go there because it was thought there were good agricultural prospects and because there was no one there, the idea being that it was thought best to try out mechanical agriculture where there was no fear of cutting across tribal customs, and all the rest of it.
It is because we on this side of the Committee think there are possibilities of eventual colonial development in it that we have repeatedly asked for an inquiry,


in the form of a Royal Commission or some high-powered independent inquiry, to find out how we can achieve that end. For the right hon. Gentleman to come along and re-christen this scheme, and to do nothing and propose nothing towards bringing about any colonial development is not, I think, very good. I do not want to expatiate on how it is going to be done, but I say that the difficulty is going to be that if we are to make use of the installations already there, the hospitals, the schools, the railways, the roads and all the rest of it, there must be people to use them, and people to cultivate the land.
I do not know enough about these things to know from where the people are to come. It may be that by compulsion or by persuasion it may be possible to get some orderly migration from some other part of Africa, not far away, which may be overcrowded. That is the sort of question which an inquiry should ascertain or of which, had it been assertained, the Colonial Office should have been in charge. The Minister says that by October it is hoped to have a report for the House and that this summer there will be a careful inquiry into the details of the present harvest and, into the cropping programme, and that the accounts are to carefully analysed.
If I may say so, "That is elementary, my dear Watson." That is what one would have expected to go on, anyhow. It does not require a new Minister to come and say what a well-organised and well-run Corporation should be doing. Then, says the Minister, "We propose to go forward steadily, to test each step as we go along." Grand! It justifies every one of the criticisms made in the last three years on this side of the Committee. We have always been criticising the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and the Government. too, for their headlong attitude. As it has come out during the Debate, as a result of evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, it was the Government's decision—not that of the East Africa Company, not that of the Corporation—that it must go on at headlong speed. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee makes that very point. It says in paragraph 34:
Your Committee are left with the impression that the basic fault in the scheme was the failure to realise the impracticability of the original plans in the conditions which

existed immediately after the war. An immense development and production drive was set on foot at a time when nothing but secondhand plant and machinery were available and before a balanced administrative financial and accounting system had been created….
It goes on:
But the sense of urgency was such that priority was given to clearing and production requirements; administration and accounting, though important, were regarded as secondary to those main purposes.
There is the whole, headlong decision of the Government. When the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) comes along and tries to say it is not the Government that are to blame for anything that has happened but that it is Parliament because Parliament agreed to go forward with this scheme, and therefore tries to shuffle responsibility on to all of us, we are prepared to take responsibility for saying, when first it was introduced, that we thought it was a good idea; but we on this side of the Committee could not be certain, and, indeed, nor could hon. Members on the other side be certain, at that time that the machinery was available, and that the financial and accounting system was being created, and all the rest of it. We never knew. We could never get any information from the Government. The Minister was always silent. No, the responsibility lies with the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman said there must be realistic planning in the future. I hope there is going to be, because that is what we have asked for all along. What I could not make out in the Minister's speech was what plan is now being worked upon. That is really a matter of some importance. There have been a number of plans. I do not go right back to the Wakefield plan, or to its second edition. The last edition put forward was in the last Debate. Under that plan it was intended, by 1954, to plant 600,000 acres at a cost of £48 million. I do not know, and I could not gather from the right hon. Gentleman, whether that plan has been scrapped or not. Is that still the plan? The Minister shrugs his shoulders. He does not know. Then where are we? That is the blueprint which was last seen, and it has nothing to do with Kongwa.
I come back to what the Minister said about this working party under Sir


Charles Lockhart. They are going out to deal only with Kongwa; those are their terms of reference and nothing else; and the Kongwa portion out of the 600,000 acres in the most recent blueprint, even at the best, is less than 100,000 acres. Nothing, apparently, is being decided or investigated about the other half-million acres by 1954. If there are investigations, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us, because I must admit that, with the best will in the world, I could not discover them from the Minister's speech. If that is still the plan, let the Committee realise what it means as compared with the original scheme. It means that we shall have, one year later, one-fifth of the original acreage at double the cost.
To come back to the Public Accounts Committee, whose Report is largely before us today—and in passing, may I say how grateful we must all be to our colleagues for the great care with which they have probed this matter and the very interesting things they have discovered; I wish I had time to give all the funny quotations I have found. On this point about the 600,000 acres by 1954 at a cost of £48 million, the last words of the Report are:
The Chairman of the Corporation stated that he believed the present plan to be practicable on the experience they have had so far and on certain assumptions that have been made of future operations.
But if hon. Members look at what the Ministry of Food had to say, through its spokesman, they will see that in reply to Question 1359 on page 80 Sir Frank Lee said:
The estimates which the Corporation produced and which we checked did show, as Sir Leslie Plummer has said, that, on the assumptions made, the scheme would pay its way in the sense in which he was using the term after 1954.
And that is very much a term of art, because it will not do that in view of its capital expenditure. Sir Frank Lee continued:
I would tell you frankly that the Ministry of Food thought some of his estimates were unduly sanguine, and we felt that the issue, as it were, might be much more finely balanced at that time than the Corporation had supposed.
We cannot draw very much comfort even from the last blueprint, but my question is—is that still in the picture or not? The Public Accounts Committee is

most valuable, and I am sure we are all very grateful to our colleagues for the care and attention they have given to the matter. A factor of really great importance, from the point of view of this Committee, is the expenditure of public money—whether we are getting, or are ever likely to get, anything commensurate in return; and that is why I must admit I was shocked to hear the remarks of two hon. Members in this Debate. First, the hon. Member for Bowles—[Laughter.]—well, he might be, but he is the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), gave a very interesting description of his visit there, which was well worth hearing. He said we must not worry too much about money. Then the hon. Member for Reading, South said, "Do not let the Corporation stick too closely to their accounts."
Of course, it was because of the difficulty of the accounts that the Select Committee investigated the matter at all. For them to be told, after all their labours, that the Corporation need not bother to stick too much to their accounts in future reveals a fundamental gap in the thinking of some hon. Members with regard to their traditional historical functions, if it does nothing else. I think that is rather serious and it was something of that mentality, I believe, which was at the back of the former Minister's speeches.
For the present the right hon. Gentleman has given us some figures—which, as a matter of fact, the Corporation issued this week—about how the present harvest is going; it is not finished. I should like to make just one comment. In future, I hope that when they do put out these Press notices—and the right hon. Gentleman said he will be careful to see that they do—they stick to dealing with these groundnuts and things shelled. Up to now they have always been dealt with as unshelled. This time the figures have been given for the unshelled product. Of course, dealing with them unshelled makes it look very much better, because 1,500 tons unshelled equals 1,050 tons shelled, so that to give the figures for the unshelled product makes the total larger. In the past we have always dealt with the matter on comparable bases.
From calculations made for me, I find that up till now the total amount harvested of all the groundnuts. sunflowers, maize and sorghum—the whole lot—from


the East Africa project is about 4,500 tons, and that, granted what remains to be harvested is on the same basis and that there are no worse patches, the grand total may be about 8,400 tons this year of oil-bearing seeds. The value of the present amount harvested is about £150,000, and the grand total, using the same sort of basis, would be £340,000. As far as I can make out, therefore, the most we can look for this year is about 8,500 tons of a value of about £350,000—and this for £35¾ million!
The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt wish to reply and explain some of these things in more detail, but let me just say this. We, like they, and like anybody else, wish to send to those out there who are working so hard and living a very difficult life in arduous times, in great heat, and with problems coming up daily which they had not envisaged, our sympathy and our best wishes as individuals. When we come to the scheme itself, we agree that it was, still is, and could be made into, a great thing: it was a great conception when it was started; it could still be. We agree that a lot of experiments must be made. The Ministry were always against pilot plots—as came out very clearly in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee—all because of the rush. Well, they did make some experiments on the largest scale, and many of them have failed. As the Report of the Corporation points out, they experimented in sunflowers, and 10,000 acres failed; even at Kongwa, lack of rain washed out the experiment.

Mr. Kenyon: How could lack of rain wash it out?

Captain Crookshank: It was not "washed out" in that sense, of course. The whole trouble was that there was not enough of that kind of washing out. But they were "washed out" in these accounts, of which the hon. Member for Reading, South, thinks so little.
We agree that when the plan was started there were no natives there. Somehow or other, in the long-run the natives, as the hon. Gentleman calls them—although I thought the usual term was "Africans"—will have to be brought in to do the work and to carry out the agriculture if the territory is to be developed to the beet advantage. We all agree about

that. We all agree that native methods of agriculture must be improved. But mechanisation is a very big jump from anything to which they have already been used, and there may be some slower way of achieving what is desired. All that is probably common ground.
What is not common ground is how it is to be done, and we say that the Government should inquire into that matter through an impartial body. As the Minister has just indicated by a shrug of his shoulders, he does not know what the blue-print for the year is, whether or not we are still on the 600,000 acres for 1954.
The last Minister has gone and the new Minister is here, a practical, levelheaded, business-like man, we hope—certainly none of those adjectives apply to his predecessor. We applaud the change in the higher direction we hope is to come from the Minister. But this is the House of Commons in Committee of Supply, and what we have been talking about all day has been the fact that £35¾ million have been spent and we are being invited to vote still further large sums, when it is admitted, by this shrug of the shoulders, if not in his speech, that there is no clear plan of development, and it has not even been decided in the Kongwa area, which has been the bone of contention up to now—probably the others will follow later on—whether cropping or ranching is the solution to the problem.
And so, although we have got a new Minister, it is still the same Government, I am sorry to say, and they still have the same collective responsibility, and they still have the same Prime Minister; but we still say, as we said on 21st November in the Amendment which was then moved, that
in view of the most disquieting facts disclosed therein,"—
that is in the Report—
this House regards as essential and urgent a full inquiry into the present situation and the future prospects of the Corporation's work in East Africa."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 162.]
Nothing, except the disappearance of the Minister and the Chairman, makes that any less necessary today in the month of July. We asked for that in November, and it was not granted. The only way we can protest is to take the matter to a vote, because the Government in the


whole of this business have completely forfeited our confidence.
Therefore, I beg to move, "That Item Class IX, Vote 3, be reduced by £5."

9.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): Let me, first of all, on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself, join the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in wishing the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) a speedy recovery, and to say that we also regret his inability to join us in our Debate today. I should like also to say that we join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in expressing our appreciation of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I had the honour to serve on that Committee, being present as a member of it during part of the time the Committee was concerned with the inquiry which has been so much called in aid today.
I should like also to say that I think there has been, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated, a rather new atmosphere present in this Debate. I very much welcome that. During the Whitsun Recess, I remember being on holiday just over the Border and a native of the place where I was staying, whose general demeanour indicated that he was obviously politically hostile, popping his head through the window and shouting "Groundnuts." From that, I presumed that "Groundnuts" was a term of political abuse. I am very glad that we can now look forward to the day when it will cease to be so used.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a very wily, astute and skilful Parliamentarian, but he cannot really expect me to rise to the flies he has cast. My right hon. Friend has said that he is not prepared to speculate upon the future of this scheme. What we have to await is the marshalling of the facts upon which its future can be determined. As my right hon. Friend said, these will be made fully available, and I think that what we must do is to wait for them before we can speculate on the future of this scheme.
What I intend to do tonight is to deal with as many of the points that have been raised in this Debate as I can, and to provide such facts as we have got at our disposal. Some rather wild allegations

have been made about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. From the information that we have and from the inquiries that I have made it is quite clear that these extravagant allegations have no foundation in fact, and that his bona fides are not in doubt. Let me, first of all, bat on the easier wicket. The Overseas Food Corporation is responsible for two schemes, the Queensland scheme and the East African scheme. What seems to have been overlooked in all our Debates is that it is the same Board that is responsible for all the schemes.

Mr. Hurd: It is a joint Board.

Mr. Wiley: It is true that it is a joint Board, but if criticism is to be made it reflects on the same persons. In Queensland it is generally agreed the joint Board have done well, and that they have reached and surpassed their targets. A great deal has been said about pilot schemes. In fact, the Queensland scheme has proved a pilot scheme, because farmers are now following the example which the Board has set and a number of them are starting similar schemes. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), that my right hon. Friend did not convey that we would in any large measure depend upon this scheme for bacon supplies.
To turn to some of the other points which have been made and which affect the East African scheme, there is a great deal of confusion about remote control and remote responsibility. The fact is that members of the Board have always spent a good deal of time in East Africa. Since the Board was recently reconstituted, the Chairman has paid two visits to East Africa, has spent 11 weeks there and is going back next week; the Vice-Chairman has paid three visits, and has been 14 weeks in East Africa. As has already been stated, Sir Charles Lockhart is at present in East Africa.
The point was raised—I think it was a proper point to raise in view of the Select Committee's Report—that information should be made available about the accounting staff. The position is that the Board believe that their accounting staff is adequate but their stores staff is hardly adequate and will probably have to be slightly increased in the immediate


future. The point was also raised regarding the position of members of the staff who might become redundant. The conditions covering them are generous, and as far as I know are accepted by the staff. The provision is for four months' pay with pay for such leave as a member of the staff concerned might be entitled to.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) asked about the rainfall in Kongwa. The Committee should appreciate that the rainfall for the last season, while it was considerably better than for the previous year, was, unfortunately, badly distributed. We did not have the rain when we would have liked it. He also asked about the water supply, which is an important consideration in view of another suggestion which he made. There are no present difficulties about water supply in Kongwa. Water supplies are adequate. I have to add to that the qualification that they are adequate for present purposes. I am dealing with drinkable water. They would not be adequate if, as the hon. Member suggested, we should turn to cattle ranching.
A point was raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough which was also raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), about the oil and fats situation in the world. I should first put on record—I am not complaining of this—that when the Permanent Secretary to my Department gave evidence before the Select Committee he said: "I still think that our position is a relatively vulnerable one." That is the position. I do not want to deal with this in detail. The figures are available, but I would just make one reservation upon what has been said. The supplies of soft oils and groundnut oil are not so readily available as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to suggest. Moreover, on the export side the position is revealed in the reports of the Food and Agriculture Organisation as far from being one that could lead us to easy confidence.
It is particularly appropriate to say that we are anxious about the Far Eastern situation. Another factor is that the Germans are coming again on to the market. It would be far too sanguine to say that the world oil and fat situation is one about which we can have any satisfaction. We have to improve the position

not only in a world sense but also with special regard to the position of the British Empire.
I would turn to another point which became a theme of our Debate. It is whether the Board should place greater reliance in the future, and should have placed greater reliance in the past, upon experimental, pilot plots. The position is that the Board has always had experimental plots. One hon. Gentleman mentioned, in passing, that one of the difficulties of the Corporation in the past, for instance in 1946–47, was that the results from some of the trial plots proved very misleading. The point was made that some of the trial plots were in the foothills. The same consideration applies to the various regions. We have found it extremely difficult to get the information we want from trial plots. After all, one of the difficulties about the Wakefield Commission was the limited range of operations upon which they depended for their recommendations—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: What was the size of the pilot plot? Has the hon. Gentleman himself seen it?

Mr. Willey: I have not, unfortunately, been out there. I will put it this way. There have always been trial plots.

Mr. Hudson: But how large?

Mr. Willey: There were small plantations and there are now plantations of hundreds of acres. One of the results of the original progress of the scheme was that instead of having 150,000 acres at the end of the first year's operations we had 7,500 to 9,000 acres, so that at all levels we had what were, in effect, experimental plots.

Mr. Hudson: The Parliamentary Secretary is quite unconsciously misleading the Committee. At the time that 50,000 acres at Kongwa was being talked of as the trial area, what was the actual size of the experimental plots about which he is talking? I submit that it was under 100 acres.

Mr. Willey: I will recapitulate what I have said. First of all, there were trial plots. In the area to which he refers the right hon Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) says that the plots did not exceed 100 acres. We now have plots running into hundreds of


acres. Apart from that, we are talking about mass mechanised agriculture on the scale, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, of hundreds of thousands of acres.

Mr. Hudson: There never was a pilot plot.

Mr. Willey: There were, because of the way the scheme developed originally, only comparatively small plots. This point really cannot be pressed as it has been pressed in the Committee.
I now turn to the argument that the scheme should be transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. That is a matter which is quite irrelevant to the other questions of detail which have been discussed in this and previous Debates. What has been said today and in previous Debates would not be met by any divorce between the Corporation and the Ministry of Food. The Corporation accepts responsibility for what it is doing. My right hon. Friend and I have no desire to evade responsibility. It would be an easy formula for the evasion of responsibility to transfer the responsibility for the scheme to a Department responsible for colonial affairs.
We do not ask for that. We say that if a case be made out for this development, it will be made out after the reassessment of the scheme to which my right hon. Friend has referred. There is no case at the moment for an early divorce or even for a legislative separation. There is the closest co-operation with the Secretary of State for the Colonies and, perhaps even more important, there is the closest co-operation with the Governor, Sir Edward Twining, and the Chief Agricultural Adviser on the spot.
When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire raised the point about an inquiry, one of the legs upon which he rested his argument was the settlement of the question whether the scheme should be under the Colonial Office or under my Department. If that is a matter to go before high-powered inquiry, as he described it, it is rather prejudging the issue to say so dogmatically, as has been said time after time, that it is quite patent that this scheme should be under the responsibility of my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose—

Mr. Willey: I am sorry. I cannot give way.
After all, this is a matter which has been raised constantly by the Opposition. Whatever merits the case may have for this high-powered inquiry, it is peculiarly inopportune at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For these reasons. The Select Committee on Public Accounts has just reported and its Report has been accepted as a useful one by all sides of the Committee. I cannot see that we shall get any more reassuring inquiry into the past than we have had from the Select Committee. That is the position. We have held an inquiry and, as far as the matters raised in the course of that inquiry are concerned, we can say, and I accept responsibility for saying, that the accounting side of the scheme is being put right.
What we are concerned about—and this has been accepted in the attitude which has been taken by hon. Members towards what my right hon. Friend has said—is the future. Is there anyone better equipped to give his views about the future than the present Board? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Is there anyone with the same experience of this type of agriculture in these conditions? I have said that we have had an inquiry into the financial side of this scheme. Is there anyone who is better equipped on that side than the present Board? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Let me tell the Members of the Opposition that they have never divided on this matter. They have always accepted, as they have today, that this was a job to be done by a public corporation. They have always said that, they do not quarrel with that. If this is a job to be done by a public corporation then the responsibility for doing the job is that of the Corporation and, through my right hon. Friend, the ultimate responsibility comes back to this Committee and this House.
Why should we try to escape that responsibility by saying that this is such an intractable problem that we must place the responsibility on an independent, high-powered commission? We say that when we set up a scheme such as this, which the House did without division on Second


and Third Readings, we accepted that the ultimate responsibility lay in this House. What my right hon. Friend today has said is this: pursuant to that responsibility, by autumn next, when the facts are available, when the opinions of those responsible for the scheme have been obtained; then, by means of a White Paper, these facts will be fully known and this House can decide whether or not it took a right and proper decision in setting up a public corporation to do this job.
Surely that is the way in which we should approach a problem like this. This demand for an inquiry is nothing more than a political stunt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Plot."]—each time the Opposition get up and say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Plot."]stunt—each time they get up and say, "We are not equipped to face responsibility; we must have some high-powered commission."

Mr. Blackburn: Would my right hon. Friend allow me—

Mr. Wiley: I am sorry, no.
The Board have never sought to take a parochial view of the work they are doing. They have always sought advice. In fact, as has been accepted from all sides today, they have taken a wise course in seeking the best available advice on Kongwa. I cannot choose between the views of the hon. Members for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and Newbury, but it is generally agreed that the Board sought the best advice and that the advice of the Kongwa working party will be considered when they formulate their plans.
In the few minutes remaining at my disposal I should like to emphasise again that the responsibility for the scheme is ultimately the responsibility of this Committee. [Interruption.] Yes, the Minister is in turn responsible to this Committee. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)—we cannot complain of this—raised a point which has been rejected by both the Government and the party opposite. He suggested that this was a matter which ought to have been left to private enterprise. That opinion has been rejected by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden); and on Third Reading the right hon. Member for Bristol, West, speaking for

the Opposition, said he did not think that under present conditions it would have been possible for private enterprise to have tackled the groundnut scheme. That is our view. We accept the responsibility—

Mr. Wade: I did not suggest that the scheme should be carried out by private enterprise.

Mr. Willey: I can only say that the hon. Member conveyed to me that impression. It was the general view of the House that the scheme should be entrusted to a public corporation, and it is the general view, at any rate, of the two major parties in the House that this scheme was not a matter which could properly be left to private enterprise.
The other thing that must be generally conceded by anyone who makes any inquiries into this great enterprise is that everyone who has been concerned or interested in the scheme believes in its eventual success. The hon. Member for Newbury today repeated what he has previously said in articles which he has had published on this matter. He has been to the area of the scheme. In an excellent article in "Progress," he put to himself the rhetorical question:
 Can the scheme be made a success?
His answer was:
I am certain that it can.
The other thing which must be conceded is this: however critical people may be of the scheme, the fact remains, as the hon. Member said, that
everyone must respect and pay tribute to the determined optimism of the pioneers in getting the scheme started in the face of difficulties which would have daunted lesser men.
Reference has been made to the book by Mr. Alan Wood. While I have not time to read it as a peroration, I would refer the Committee to the concluding paragraph of the book, which says exactly the same thing. It is against the light of these broad generalisations which I have made that the scheme should be considered. It is really conceded everywhere that this work ought to be undertaken, that it should be undertaken by a public corporation, and that the men on the spot have done a first-class job. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In the light of those generalisations, many—indeed, most—of the criticisms that have been made today are no more than matters of detail.

Question put, "That Item Class IX, Vote 3, be reduced by £5."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 299.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fort, R.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Alport, C. J. M.
Foster, J. G.
McAdden, S. J


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Amory, D Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gage, C. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gammans, L. D.
McKibbin, A.


Baker, P.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (De [...]ligh)
McKie, J H. (Galloway)


Baldock, J. M.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S


Baldwin, A. E.
Glyn, Sir R.
Maclean, F. H. R.


Banks, Col. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Gridley, Sir A.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Beamish, Maj. T V. H.
Grimond, J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bell, R. M
Grimston, Hon. J (St. Albans)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Grimston, R. V (Westbury)
Maitland, Comdr J. W.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Harden, J. R. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Bennett, W. G (Woodside)
Hare, Hon. J, H. (Woodbridge)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)




Birch, Nigel
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Marples, A. E


Bishop, F. P.
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Black, C. W
Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)


Boothby, R.
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
Maude, J. C. (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Hay, John
Maudling, R.


Bowen, R.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Medlicott, Brigadier F


Bower, N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Mellor, Sir J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heald, L. F.
Molson, A H. E.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Heath, Edward
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Braine, B.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.
Higgs, J M. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Hill, Mrs. E (Wythenshawe)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Nabarro, G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholls, H


Bullock, Capt M
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholson, G.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.
Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Butcher, H. W.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nugent, G. R H.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hopkinson, H L. D'A.
Nutting, Anthony


Carr, L. R (Mitcham)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Oakshott, H. D.


Carson, Hon. E.
Horsbrugh, Miss F.
Odey, G. W.


Channon, H.
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clyde, J. L.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Colegate, A
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Osborne, C.


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Pickthorn, K.


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hyde, H. M.
Pitman, I. J


Cranborne, Viscount
Hylton-Foster, H. B
Powell, J. Enoch


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Prescott, Stanley


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Jennings, R.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Crowder, F P. (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Profumo, J. D.


Crowder, Capt. John F E (Finchley)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Raikes, H. V.


Cundiff, F. W
Kaberry, D.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Keeling, E. H.
Redmayne, M.


Darling, Sir W Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


de Chair, S
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)


De la Bère, R.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Deedes, W. F
Leather, E. H. C.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lennox Boyd, A. T.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Martin
Roper, Sir H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Linstead, H. N.
Ropner, Col. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Llewellyn, D.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Russell, R. S.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Dunglass, Lord
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Duthie W. S.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Eccles, D. M.
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S. W.)
Scott, Donald


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)




Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Teeling, William
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Snadden, W. McN.
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)
Waterhouse, Capt. C


Soames, Capt. C.
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)
Watkinson, H.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Stevens, G. P.
Tilney, John
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Touche, G. C.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turton, R. H.
Wills, G.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Storey, S.
Vane, W. M. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wood, Hon. R.


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Vesper, D. F.
York, C.


Studholme, H. G
Wade, D. W.
Young, Sir A. S. L.


Summers, G. S.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)



Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Mr. Drewe and Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Adams, Richard
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Houghton, Douglas


Albu, A. H.
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Hoy, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Deer, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)


Awbery, S. S.
Diamond, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Donnelly, D.
Hynd, H (Accrington)


Baird, J.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)


Balfour, A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dye, S.
Irving, W J. (Wood Green)


Bartley, P.
Ede, RI. Hon J C
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Edelman, M.
Janner, B


Benson, G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jay, D. P. T.


Beswick, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Jeger, G. (Goole)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Eobw Vale)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)


Bing, G. H C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H.


Blackburn, A. R
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Blyton, W. R.
Ewart, R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Booth, A.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bottomley, A. G.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Bowden, H. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Keenan, W


Eowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Follick, M.
Kenyon, C


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Foot, M. M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Forman, J. C.
King, H. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Brooks, T. J (Normanton)
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Kinley, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D


Brown, George (Belper)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lang, Rev. G.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, F. (Newton)


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, C. W
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Burton, Miss E.
Gilzean, A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)


Callaghan, James
Gooch, E. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)


Carmichael, James
Greenwood, Anthony W. J. (Rossendale)
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lindgren, G. S


Champion, A. J.
Grenfell, D R
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Cocks, F. S
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
McAllister, G.


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
MacColl, J. E.


Collick, P.
Gunter, R. J.
McGhee, H. G.


Collindridge, F.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McGovern, J


Cook, T. F.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
McInnes, J


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mack, J. D.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hall, J (Gateshead, W.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
McLeavy, F.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Crawley, A.
Hardman, D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Hardy, E. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Harrison, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mann, Mrs. J.


Daggar, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, A. C.


Daines, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mellish, R. J.


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Messer, F


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hobson, C. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Holman, P
Mikardo, Ian







Mitchison, G. R.
Rhodes, H.
Tomney, F


Moeran, E. W.
Richards, R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Monslow, W.
Robens, A.
Usborne, Henry


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Vernon, Mai W. F


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Viant, S. P


Morley, R.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wallace, H. W


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Watkins, T E.


Mort, D. L.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Webb, Rt Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Moyle, A
Royle, C.
Weitzman, D.


Mulley, F. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Murray, J D
Shawcross, Rt. Han. Sir H.
Wells, W T (Walsall)


Nally, W
Shurmer, P. L. E
West, D. G.


Neal, H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wheatley, Rt. H.n. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


O'Brien, T.
Simmons, C. J.
White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Slater, J.
Whiteley, Rt Hon W


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wigg, George


Orbach, M.
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.


Padley, W. E.
Snow, J. W.
Wilkes, L.


Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pannell, T. C.
Steele, T.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Pargiter, G. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Parker, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paton, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G R. (Vauxhall)
Williams, Rt. Hon, T. (Don Valley)


Peart, T. F.
Stress, Dr. B.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Poole, Cecil
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wilson, Rt Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Popplewell, E.
Sylvester, G. O.
Winterbottom, I (Nottingham C.)


Porter, G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Taylor, R. J. (MorPeth)
Wise, Major F J.


Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woods, Rev G S


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)
Wyatt, W. L


Rankin, J.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Yates, V F


Rees, Mrs. D.
Thorneycrott, Harry (Clayton)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Reeves, J.
Thurtle, Ernest



Reid, T. (Swindon)
Timmons, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Reid, W (Camlachie)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

MEDICAL BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 14th July.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 15.—(PROCEDURE OF MEDICAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE.)

Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 29, at the end, insert:
(f) for securing that no complaint or information investigated by the Penal Cases Sub-Committee, other than a decision in a court of law, shall be referred to the Committee for adjudication unless the circumstances upon which such complaint or information is founded shall have been verified by statutory declaration of the person making the same, or, where such complaint is made or such information submitted by any public department, authority, or other body, by statutory declaration of an officer of such public department, authority, or other body, duly authorised for the purpose."—[Dr. Hill.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The Chairman: Dr. Hill.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: On a point of order. I was in the middle of addressing the Committee when the time limit was reached on Friday.

The Chairman: I am sorry. The rule which applies in the House does not apply when we are in Committee. Dr. Hill.

10.15 p.m.

Dr. Hill: On Friday last, some 15 minutes were spent on this Amendment, so I will be brief and not cover the ground again. The essence of it is simply this. Until recently, it was the invariable practice of the General Medical Council to insist on there being a complainant and a complaint before it considered allegations of professional misconduct and the like. There has recently grown up, or there are signs that it is growing up, a practice under which a Government Department, the Ministry of Health, sends along certain papers, but does not make a complaint, does not put in any statement of complaint, but sends along these papers for the interest, it seems, of the General Medical Council. For example, recently, a practitioner was brought before the internal machinery of


the National Health Service on a particular set of allegations, and the case went to the tribunal.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of order. Could you not, Major Milner, possibly persuade hon. Members of the Opposition to listen with a certain amount of courtesy to the remarks now being made by the hon. Member opposite?

Dr. Hill: In this case, the practitioner was not found guilty by the tribunal, but the Ministry of Health subsequently sent the papers along to the General Medical Council in case they were interested.
The sole purpose of this Amendment is to secure that a person or body making a complaint shall make a sworn statement of what it is that they complain about, and that a Government Department shall be in no different position from anyone else in this matter. The purpose of the Amendment is not to protect doctors. Indeed, if I may recall what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said last Friday, he will say that this practice or this beginning of a practice by the Ministry of Health is to protect the doctors, and that to suggest that in every case he should make a sworn declaration would lead him to swear even more frequently than he does at the present time.
I suggest that there is a simple point here, and it is that a Government Department should not be freed from the requirement of saying what the complaint is, and should not be freed from the obligation of appearing and making the complaint and of being questioned about the complaint, as is anyone else. So this Amendment to Clause 15 is put down merely to secure that a statutory declaration is made by a person or a body, so that the Ministry of Health and any other Government Department or public body shall be in exactly the same position as an individual person and be required to say what is the complaint which it is desired that the General Medical Council should investigate.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a statement at this stage, because, as those hon. Members who took an interest in this matter last Friday are aware—and

there are a great many more taking an interest in it this evening than there were last Friday—I have had some discussions about this matter, and, as I indicated last Friday, I am accepting the first part of this Amendment. It is the second part which, so far, I am resisting.
However, I have considered it and it seems to me that there is some point in the contention that, where a doctor has appeared before the tribunal under the National Health Service Act and has been acquitted before that tribunal, he ought not to be tried twice, and that the papers in such a case ought not to be sent to the General Medical Council. I am prepared to give an assurance that the Health Department will not send the papers to the General Medical Council in a case where the doctor has been acquitted by the tribunal set up under the National Health Service Act. I think that meets the substance of the case which has been made.
However, I must make it clear that the decisions of the tribunal are published, and that the General Medical Council may take cognisance of the published decisions and may start proceedings themselves. If in such a case they ask for the papers, then, of course, I think it would be generally agreed that the papers would have to be supplied; but where the doctor has successfully appealed to the tribunal, I am prepared to give an undertaking that in such a case the papers will not be passed on.

Dr. Hill: In view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO STRIKING OFF REGISTER UNDER S. 29 OF MEDICAL ACT, 1858.)

Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out subsection (1), and to insert:
(1) If any registered medical practitioner shall be convicted in any court in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland of any felony, misdemeanour crime or offence and is judged by the medical disciplinary com-


mittee after due inquiry to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, the disciplinary committee may, if it sees fit, direct the registrar to erase the name of such medical practitioner from the register.
(2) If any registered medical practitioner is judged by the medical disciplinary committee, after due inquiry into any complaint received and supported by affidavit or affidavits, to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, the medical disciplinary committee may, if it sees fit, direct the registrar to erase the name of such medical practitioner from the register.
This Amendment has reference to the problem of inquiry after court proceedings, and is an attempt to bring about a substitution for Section 29 of the Medical Act, 1858. The wording of that Section is as follows:
if any registered medical practitioner shall be convicted in England or Ireland of any felony or misdemeanour, or in Scotland of any crime or offence, or shall, after due inquiry, he judged by the General Council to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, the General Council may direct the Registrar to erase the name of such medical practitioner from the register.
I think it is a reasonable point of view to put forward to the Minister that there may be something wrong in this attitude. We are anxious to have the ruling that courts of law shall not try the practitioner for the same offence twice. If he is tried legally, it is because he has committed, or is accused of committing, a fault against the State or against society in general. When he comes before the General Medical Council, however, then it is his professional conduct, and that only, which is judged, and the investigation and its nature before the tribunal may differ from the aspect of the case when he is tried legally in a court of law.
I think, therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that all the General Medical Council should try the practitioner for is on whether he is guilty of infamous conduct in a professional sense, quite distinct from any offence he may have committed against the law of the land. I am asking the Minister to accept this Amendment because it would, I think, regularise the position.

Sir Herbert Williams: May I draw attention to the drafting of this Clause, to which this is an Amendment? It speaks of a medical practitioner convicted "by any court in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland." In

the Republic of Ireland they may have all sorts of laws over which we have no control. They may create new felonies. They might make it a felony to sing what we call the National Anthem, in the Republic of Ireland. A doctor, a general registered practitioner, might be convicted of the felony of singing what we call the National Anthem. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member is joking."] No, I am not joking. In connection with a certain visit to Northern Ireland people were protesting in Dublin the other day, so it is not too remote.
It is quite monstrous that the position of a registered medical practitioner in the United Kingdom may depend upon an offence against the law in the Republic of Ireland, which we did not regard as an offence here. I understand that, under the system of registration, there is an exchange of arrangements between this country and the foreign country known as the Republic of Ireland. It is a foreign country. They say so. I presume they know what kind of country it is. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) ought to make it quite clear, in his Amendment, whether he has any restrictions on the words "felony, misdemeanour, crime or offence." Otherwise, we may expose to the risk of being struck off the register quite a lot of people who are general practitioners in this country, registered by the General Medical Council, who may be on holiday in Ireland, and who may commit what is deemed there to be a crime.

Dr. Stross: I am very glad to hear the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) make that point because, although it is almost a reductio ad absurdum there is a point involved. If my Amendment is accepted, there can be no action, whatever the felony may be, without an inquiry by the G.M.C. That would give the protection the hon. Member has in mind.

Sir H. Williams: If a doctor has committed a crime in the eyes of the Republic of Ireland which is not a crime here, it is not right that he should be put under the intolerable burden of defending himself before the General Medical Council. I see an hon. Member opposite shaking his head, but he is an expert on medicine and not on law.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: The Amendment reads:
 If any registered medical practitioner shall be convicted … and is judged by the medical disciplinary committee …
So, not only must he be convicted in Ireland, but he must be judged by the medical disciplinary committee, after due inquiry, to have been guilty of infamous conduct.

Sir H. Williams: Because the first thing happens, he is charged before the second tribunal. The mere fact that he has been convicted of "Any felony, misdemeanour, crime or offence" makes it implicit that the medical disciplinary committee should then consider his further offence. Thus, any medical practitioner in this country would be exposed to the consequences of committing a felony, over which the committee and the Parliament of Britain have no control whatever.
In a week's time the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland—I do not know what they call it, it is a strange name I cannot pronounce; it is the Dail, I think—might pass a law creating a new felony and, without our knowledge, expose every practitioner in this country to the risk of committing that felony and being brought before the medical disciplinary committee. It would be the duty of that committee to consider the case of a practitioner who has committed that felony.

Dr. Morgan: The Amendment says, "guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect." He must be guilty of something unethical within the profession, and not of an ordinary felony at all.

10.30 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member, who is another medical man, is also wrong. He has not taken the trouble to read the words. It does not say anything about professional misconduct. It says:
 If any registered medical practitioner shall be convicted.. of any felony, disdemeanour crime or offence …

Dr. Morgan: If the hon. Member will read a little further he will see that it continues—
… and is judged by the medical disciplinary committee after due inquiry to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, …

Mr. Bevan: The Committee is suffering under the misfortune of having taken up the Committee stage of the Bill on two separate occasions before two almost distinct audiences. If we had been able to conclude these proceedings last Friday we would have added to the continuity of examination and of illumination at the same time. Unfortunately, because it has taken up this time, I am afraid the atmosphere of belligerency exceeds that of luminosity.
The position is perfectly simple, and I hope it will not be complicated. I must start off by reminding the Committee once more that one of the purposes of this Bill is to protect the doctor. The other purpose is to protect the public. There is always much more consideration given to the organised element than to the unorganised. We are here to protect the unorganised, and the unorganised element is the general public. Doctors are given access to the private citizen in circumstances of privilege and we must therefore protect all the time the well-being and safety of the public in such a way as not to do injustice to the doctor. That is what we are seeking to do. There is nothing at all in this point about the Republic of Ireland.

Sir Herbert Williams: Sir Herbert Williams rose—

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will permit me to finish, it will be much to his advantage, because then he would learn something about it. The situation is clear. The General Medical Council need to take no notice at all of it. If a medical practitioner has been guilty under the laws of the Republic of Ireland of singing at the top of his voice in the middle of Dublin, the General Medical Council is not compelled to take notice of it merely because it is a felony under Irish law. But we may count on the General Medical Council to take notice of offences of such a serious kind as to cast doubt upon whether a doctor ought to be permitted to enjoy the privileges that a doctor enjoys. That is clear enough. It does not matter how the Republic of Ireland changes the law. What matters is the nature of the offence committed by the medical practitioner.
What is suggested by the Amendment is quite intolerable. It provides that if the doctor has not committed an offence


against his patient, it does not matter what he has done. He can be guilty of a series of assaults of any kind whatsoever. He can be guilty of blackmail and repeated blackmail. He can be guilty of any kind of serious offence which he is given a peculiar opportunity of committing. But provided it is not against his patient, according to the Amendment, the General Medical Council should ignore it. I think that is a most serious thing.
The General Medical Council has not only to try a charge made against a doctor, but it must positively seek to protect the public. If it is found that a doctor has committed a series of offences of a most serious kind, the General Medical Council must be free to consider whether such a person ought to remain on the medical register and enjoy the protection given by the medical register. I should have thought that was perfectly clear. Indeed, we have so reformed the disciplinary powers of the General Medical Council under this Bill that there is no danger of a doctor suffering any injustice. As has been explained on a number of occasions, if the general practitioner has been brought before the General Medical Council, and deems that he has a grievance, he has an appeal to a Committee of the Privy Council. All I ask the Committee is that the protection afforded the doctor shall be accorded to the public.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: May I, as one who has been a member of both audiences—on Friday and to-night—and who listened with admiration but without understanding to the long words that the Minister used, say with great respect that he is wrong dismissing this point as unimportant? It is not in the least unimportant. It is of the first importance. I entirely agree with him that the Amendment is nonsense, but we cannot start writing into Bills in this country provisions in regard to foreign countries.
There must be a limit to the exemptions we are to give, either by Amendment or by legislation to the choice that the Republic of Ireland has made of her own free will. I suggest that this cannot be said to be unimportant, because the disciplinary committee has the right to interpret it in any way they like. I think my hon. Friend has raised an important point. The Minister will remember that

I said on Friday that we cannot and must not legislate or start legislating for a country which, by its own will, has severed itself from the Commonwealth.

Sir H. Williams: The Minister said I was talking nonsense. I intervened to find out in what way, but having listened for five more minutes to the right hon. Gentleman I found that he did not give any indication. I only agreed that this Amendment was silly. It contains two parts—to leave out a subsection and to insert another. They both contain the phrase "in any court in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland of any felony, misdemeanor, crime or offence." Therefore, we are handing over a subject of His Majesty to the law of what is, in effect, a foreign country. If the right hon. Gentleman had included any of those crimes in any country I could have understood it, but why, because a man is on holiday in Ireland, resting from the performance of certain duties which the right hon. Gentleman has laid upon him, and happens to be involved in something that country classes as a "felony, misdemeanor, crime or offence," he is in peril of the General Medical Council—

Mr. Bevan: No.

Sir H. Williams: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying "No." Let him give the reasons. He cannot get away with shaking his head. That is not an argument. Let the right hon. Gentleman explain why the man is not in peril.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I think the Committee is entitled to have some knowledge whether the arrangement in subsection (1) is reciprocal. On Friday, the Committee discussed another Amendment dealing with Ireland, and I think hon. Members were not altogether satisfied that what is now intended to be done regarding Southern Ireland will work. The basis of dealing with Southern Ireland is that there shall be a reciprocal arrangement so that the decisions shall be similar in both countries. I imagine the basis of dealing with the law of Southern Ireland is different from that of dealing with the law of France, Italy, America or anywhere else, in that we have a special position regarding Southern Ireland. Could the Minister tell us whether the same Amendment is being made in


the law of Southern Ireland, so as to treat the United Kingdom doctor in the same way as in other countries?

Mr. Linstead: Before the Minister replies I should like to put to him a point which might help to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). Is there is any other way, except through the General Medical Council, of removing a practitioner from the medical register in the Republic of Ireland? If there is no other way, except through this machinery, then there is good reason, according to the law of Ireland, for the same provision as is accorded to the law of this country.

Mr. Bevan: The disciplinary court is the General Medical Council. We are discussing whether a person should go on to the medical register and the conditions under which he can be removed from the register. With respect to the intern year, we were perfectly clear on Friday that a person must serve the intern year in Ireland if he wishes to appear on the medical register of both countries. Reciprocity is, therefore, established. Do we understand that what is now meant about reciprocity is that if the Republic of Ireland makes a thing an offence in the Republic, then we must make a similar thing an offence under English law, otherwise there is no reciprocity?
What we are talking about is the General Medical Council's power to take cognisance of an offence which is an offence, whether it be committed in Ireland or committed here. If a doctor from this country took up residence in Southern Ireland and committed a series of offences there which would also be offences against our law here, is it suggested that the General Medical Council should take no cognisance of this conduct? They take cognisance of the nature of the conduct, and if the Republic of Ireland has made an offence, which is a trivial affair, a criminal offence, then the General Medical Council will take no notice of it whatever, unless it has a bearing upon the doctor's ability to remain on the General Medical Register and to go on doing his work as a doctor, in exactly the same way as they would take no notice of a trivial offence com-

mitted against the English law. What the General Medical Council would take into account is the nature of the offence, whether it be in Ireland or here or anywhere, I should imagine, so long as the facts were established. We are making very heavy weather with a very light cargo.

Dr. Hill: I agree that in a large part of this argument we are making very heavy weather. It is not sufficiently realised that if a practitioner is convicted of a crime or an offence in this country it is automatically reported to the General Medical Council. The Council do not necessarily do anything about it; I suppose that in the majority of cases they they do not do anything about it. In an effort to meet the Irish situation, as dealt with in other parts of the Bill, there is the odd situation that should a practitioner go to Ireland, say, for his holidays, and get into some trouble which results in a conviction, that will automatically be reported to the General Medical Council. Should he go to France, or to the Dominions, then, of course, that will not occur.
It is rather an odd situation that Ireland should be selected as the place in which one must be particularly careful. I see the Minister disagrees; perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it that is what we are doing.

Mr. Bevan: It is a single register.

Dr. Hill: There are practitioners from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa on the register. just as there are practitioners from Southern Ireland. If the Minister is saying that offences which are committed in the countries from which the practitioners on the register are gathered must be reported to the G.M.C., then he must be logical.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Mackay: Hon. Members should realise what is the legal position. If any of these offences are committed in any of the countries as well as the Republic of Ireland, they are offences in this country, and a person can be convicted in this country if he commits a crime in any other part of the world. It does not apply to any of these countries alone.

Dr. Hill: Let me assure the hon. Member that I know the situation. I am not referring to a chance of being convicted, but to the possibility of the conviction being automatically reported to the General Medical Council and only that. It is a small point, but it seems to me that information of naughtiness that leads to conviction in Ireland will find its way to the registrar, but not from other places where practitioners go. I would suggest that the Minister might look at this point before the Report stage.

Mr. Bevan: I am ready to look at anything, but if I looked at some of the points which have been raised on this Bill I would soon get astigmatism. As the hon. Member for Luton knows very well, we have not got reciprocal arrangements with other countries. The reason why we have these complications with the Republic of Ireland is because we have a common register and there is common trading in both countries.

Dr. Hill: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this principle applies to those countries and parts of countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements, because we have reciprocal arrangements with five of the Provinces of Canada?

Mr. Bevan: We have reciprocal arrangements with Italy, and I believe I am right in saying also with Japan. The real problem here is that we are trying to make quite clear that the conditions under which the Irish doctor remains on the register in this country and in Ireland shall be no less and no more onerous than the conditions applying to the English doctor. That is what we are doing, and it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate.

Dr. Hill: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again. I agree objectively with what he says, but there is a danger that we might create in another field, the field of the reporting of convictions, a rather illogical situation. I say no more.

Mr. Bevan: I promise to have a look at it between now and the Report stage, but I hope that hon. Members will not think that any result will necessarily mean amending the Bill.

Dr. Stross: I was glad to hear the Minister say that he will look at this matter, for I think he is misinterpreting the intention of the Amendment. It may be because it is badly worded. I must take responsibility for the wording though the actual suggestion came to me from an organisation with 60 years' experience both in bringing cases against medical men and defending medical men before the G.M.C. Sixty years is a long time. As I see it, it all hinges on this question of further investigation after conviction to see if there is unprofessional conduct resulting from it. If my right hon. Friend takes advice on that one point, he might agree with some of us that this would be an improvement on the Bill. However, in view of what my right hon. Friend said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I should like to say that it is obvious that the Minister has not read the Amendment and has not read his own Clause. He says this only applies to Irish doctors. It does not. It applies to any doctor on the register who may be a doctor permanently resident in this country, but who may be in Ireland. It is no good the Minister saying that this only applies to Irish doctors. It is not true; it is not accurate. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say that."] He did say it, and if he does not get astigmatism he will be able to read it. He also referred to a series of offences, but it says nothing about offences in the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has got astigmatism apparently, and I know he cannot get glasses very quickly in these days. The Amendment says:
any felony, misdemeanour, crime or offence.
It does not say that they must all be committed. The Minister ought not to come before the Committee at this time of the night and show us that he has not read the Amendment or the Clause, and that he does not understand either of them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, to leave out subsection (2).
I think that, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are in a certain difficulty this


evening because we are continuing a very complicated discussion in the presence of a number of hon. Members who have not had the advantage of going all through the previous stages. This difficult matter, which I think can be shortly dealt with, arises out of a case known as the Spackman case. The particular point is that in the case of a person who, as the Clause says, has
a finding against him in any matrimonial proceedings in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, being proceedings of a High Court or the Court of Session"—
the decision being that he has been guilty of adultery with a certain person—that finding shall be conclusive on that fact.
There are two points. One is that occasionally the facts brought out in a second inquiry are not identical with the facts brought out in the first. It is suggested that the G.M.C. should not re-try another case. There is a great deal to be said for that: but it is possible that different facts, or facts bringing out another light on the case, may become evident in a hearing before the General Medical Council.
There is a further point to which I would like the Minister to give attention. Why should it be only a conviction that he had been guilty of adultery with a particular person? There are other offences of which he might be judged guilty which would inevitably bring out the stigma of being guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, such as a jury's verdict of justification for any proceedings for slander, or a bastardy order made by a bench of magistrates.
The Minister may say that these are not the sort of convictions which would inevitably bring about a charge of conduct which is infamous in a professional respect. I am not sure about that. I would like to have the right hon. Gentleman's opinion upon these matters. We are discussing this in a non-party atmosphere. I will not say a non-controversial atmosphere, because there is a certain amount of controversy in any discussion on the Floor of the House of Commons; but we are discussing this in an atmosphere in which the lines of demarcation do not run up and down the Floor, but occasionally run transversely across the Floor.
Therefore, I may say that we are discussing it in a non-party sense. I do not dissent from the Minister's argument that we are here to protect the public as well as the medical man. At the same time, it has been held in the past that a certain investigation held in the courts for one purpose should not be taken as more than prima facie evidence that there is a case for inquiry before another court; that it should not automatically be taken as a ground of conviction before a second court. That is a point upon which I, and several of my hon. Friends, would like to be assured.

Mr. Bevan: I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the opportunity given me to clear up any misunderstanding that this subsection may create in the minds of hon. Members. This was discussed in another place, and I think that it was there generally agreed that there would be something quite wrong in the General Medical Council re-trying a case already tried, not, shall I say, by a "superior" court, but by a court of high standing. Therefore, it could be taken for granted that in the case of adultery, the facts had been brought out, and that the decisions of the court should be accepted by the General Medical Council. I think that there will be fairly general agreement that that ought to be the case.
Where, however, it is another type of case—an offence such as that mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—we should have a criminal offence; assault, for example, and cognisance is taken of that in the other Clause. Where it is a case of an affiliation order being granted against a doctor, this, I think, is usually taken in a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales; I am not certain about the procedure in Scotland, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will know. There, the General Medical Council takes the view that this is what is known as a complex case; where it could not come to a decision that the conclusions of the court could be taken as final. The General Medical Council would there feel that it was open to it to consider whether the doctor was guilty of unprofessional conduct.
We are not dealing here with a case against the patient; that is clear. We are dealing with the conduct of the doctor as immediately jurisdictional.


These are not offences against the patient, but where information is laid with the General Medical Council, and where a decision of a court has already been given. In such cases, the General Medical Council would hold itself free, and in complex cases, where they are not criminal cases, the Council would hold itself free to reconsider the offence.

Mr. John Hay: We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, but has he appreciated the point in the Amendment? We have to remember the case of Dr. Spackman, and I wonder. if m I might ask the Committee to allow me to recount the facts, because the Clause now before us endeavours to get round a decision made by another place, sitting in a judicial capacity.
The facts are that in 1943 Dr. Spackman was a co-respondent in divorce proceedings, and judgment was given that the doctor had been guilty of adultery. The General Medical Council's disciplinary committee considered whether he should be struck off the register for gross misconduct in a professional respect, and said that as the judge had found that adultery had been committed by the doctor that, ipso facto, was sufficient evidence for them and they refused to listen to any additional evidence which Dr. Spackman wished to call to refute the charge of adultery. He said he had additional witnesses whom he did not call before the court, and that he wished to bring them before the General Medical Council to say something which might prevent his being struck off the register. But the Council refused, and another place, in its judicial capacity, held that there must be due inquiry; but, in fact, there had not been inquiry by the Council and the doctor was not allowed to call his witnesses, although some doubt existed, in the minds of some people.
11.0 p.m.
As I see it, that is the law as it stands at the moment. The subsection here tries to put the position back again to what it was before the Spackman case, because it says that:
For the purposes of any inquiry … whether a person has been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect, a finding against him in any matrimonial proceedings … that he has been guilty of adultery with a particular person shall he conclusive …

In other words, supposing a doctor in such circumstances as I have described is brought before the General Medical Council and charged with committing professional misconduct and the only evidence against him is a finding of the superior court that he had committed adultery, then, according to this Clause, he is immediately found guilty and cannot call any other evidence.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Bevan indicated dissent.

Mr. Hay: With respect, I think that is what will result. Whether it is what the Minister intends, I do not know.

Mr. Bevan: If the General Medical Council accepts as a fact that he has been guilty of adultery, that is the position. It does not necessarily follow that it proceeds to remove him from the register. That is the point.

Mr. Hay: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I was misinterpreting the position. The position, as it stands without this Clause, is that a finding of adultery in the High Court against a doctor can be used by the Council as prima facie evidence only. Lord Simon, in another place, said that. It is prima facie evidence. This Clause, as it stands, will have the effect of turning what should be a prima facie case into an almost conclusive case. That is why we want to remove this subsection from the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I ask the hon. Gentleman this question. Would he care to envisage the situation in which the court has decided that a doctor has been guilty of adultery and then the same evidence is gone over again by the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council and they say he has not committed adultery? There will be a queer situation existing there. I should have thought myself that it would be an utterly intolerable situation in which the General Medical Council could not in law but could, in fact, cast doubt upon the validity of a decision arrived at by another court.
What we are dealing with here, is this: we are assuming—and I should have thought myself that the assumption is a reasonable one—that the machinery of justice has already worked upon the doctor's case in the other court, and that


all the evidence then available had been sifted, and that all the lines of evidence had been examined, and that in a proper atmosphere, and with due consideration to the machinery of justice, a decision had been reached that the doctor had been guilty of adultery.
Are we now to proceed upon the assumption that the judicial machinery available to the General Medical Council, and their method of sifting evidence, is so much superior to that of the ordinary courts that the General Medical Council can reach a valid decision which is different from that of other courts? I should think a most extraordinary situation would be created if that were so. All that is done here is that the General Medical Council assumes that the other court has done its duty and, therefore, it need not re-try the case. It accepts the decision of the other court that an act of adultery has been committed. It then proceeds to consider whether, having regard to that fact and to the other attendant circumstances, the doctor should be removed from the register. It does not seem to me that it would be a competent thing for the General Medical Council to act upon the assumption that the decision of the other court could necessarily be invalidated and re-try what has been already tried in another court.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has fallen into error, because the nature of the proceedings in the High Court to which he referred is not criminal. If, in fact, a doctor had been tried on a criminal charge and had been found guilty of some offence, what the right hon. Gentleman says would be valid. But in those circumstances this subsection would be wholly unnecessary, because the mere fact that that charge against the doctor had been of a criminal character would have brought it within the first subsection of the Clause. The difficulty we are up against is that the offence of adultery is not a criminal offence, but a civil offence, as the nature of the proceedings in the High Court is as between two private subjects.
It is possible that a doctor, for reasons of his own, would not wish to defend himself against a charge of adultery. He could be found guilty of that charge—and indeed men are so found guilty every

day—without having lifted a finger to defend himself. In the vast majority of cases the person concerned has committed the offence—

Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the courts reach a verdict on adultery more frivolously than in the case of a criminal charge? The courts have laid it down, as I understand it, that the same evidence must be considered with regard to adultry as with regard to a criminal charge.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No.

Mr. Bevan: But I understand that they have done so. What the hon. Member is now suggesting is that in the case of adultry, the procedure of the courts is not as austere as in the case of a criminal charge.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The nature of the two cases is entirely different. A case of adultery is a case between two of His Majesty's subjects—

Mr. Bevan: So it is in the case of assault.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: —before a civil court. In a criminal case the position is wholly different. I would not like to go into the question of the difference in the rules of evidence. But I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as he probably knows, the question of confession is wholly different in civil cases and criminal cases. In this particular case what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that a man who confesses that he has been guilty of adultery, would be conclusively proved to have committed that offence of a quasi-criminal character under the subsection. That is wholly repugnant to the ideas which this Committee would wish generally to observe in these quasi-criminal cases. We have here a proposal that a man who, for reasons of his own, does not wish to defend himself against a civil charge shall subsequently find himself unable to defend himself against what amounts to a criminal charge.

Mr. Bevan: I am trying hard to understand what hon. Members have in their minds, because when this was discussed in another place the case now being put collapsed, and I cannot see anything more tangible at the moment. Let me put it


in a concrete way. A doctor has been found guilty of adultery in another court. It is said—we are speaking frankly about these things—that for reasons best known to himself he is prepared to confess to adultery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not to defend it."]—in other words to make it easy for someone else, that is what we really mean. When he comes before the General Medical Council he wants to be able to bring forward evidence which he did not bring forward in the other court. I have not yet received an answer to the question I put to hon. Gentlemen opposite. A most peculiar situation would arise in which the G.M.C., which, after all, is a court against which an appeal lies to the court of the Privy Council, would have to say in fact that this person did not commit adultery.

Mr. R. Mackay: Everything the right hon. Gentleman has been saying can be rightly attributed to a defended divorce case, but it has not a word of application to an undefended case of divorce. I speak as a solicitor of 20 years' experience, and in a large number of undefended cases of divorce, no adultery has been committed at all. The application is made. the person does not defend it, and it is supported by a letter which he may have written. There is no other evidence before the court, and the person lets it go because perhaps he wants to get free from domestic or other worries. So, in the undefended cases of divorce there is every right for the doctor to be able to go before the G.M.C. and show, if he can, that he has not committed adultery.

Mr. Bevan: A moment or two ago the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) remarked that we are not discussing party matters here at all, and I agree. We are discussing matters of great moment for the doctors concerned. I can see the difficulty that arises where, because of a complex set of domestic and private circumstances into which it is not possible for us to inquire, or by Statute, to make any preparation for at all, a person has got himself in a position where he has been a party to an undefended divorce case. Therefore, he has not been even presumed to be guilty of adultery, but is divorced. That fact is brought to the notice of the G.M.C. The case that is made is that the doctor should be permitted

to bring forward before the G.M.C. evidence he had not brought before the court. That is what is being said. It is a very dangerous thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
What is now the conclusion? It is that in such a case he was not guilty of the conduct which led to the divorce. That is what is being said. Remember that the court reached a decision. It did not reach a decision in the abstract, but in the concrete, to the effect that the divorce ought to be granted, the assumption being that, it being undefended, the person did not contest the grounds upon which the divorce was applied for.

Sir H. Williams: He wanted to "get shut" of his wife!

Mr. Bevan: Exactly. We are not, all of us, always entirely out of sympathy with such a course, but what we are now saying is that he should be able to bring evidence before the G.M.C. which, if it had been brought before the court, would have invalidated the action.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No, it would not.

Mr. Pitman: The rules of evidence are different.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do wish to answer that point. If Dr. Smith or Mr. Smith is divorced by his wife on the grounds of his adultery with Mrs. Jones, and, for the sake of argument, Mr. Jones is out of the country at the time, and wishes subsequently to bring proceedings against his wife on the same act, I am right in saying that he would have to go to the same court and prove the adultery again; and the court might hold on the second proceedings that adultery had not taken place. The same court would come to two different decisions. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to reconsider this matter. I think it is much more important than he has yet recognised and if he considers this matter in its widest implications, he will see that grave injustice will be done.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I think the right hon. Gentleman has failed to appreciate the different standards of proof which are insisted upon in the Divorce Division as com-


pared with a quasi-criminal matter, as this is. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in the Divorce Division it is possible to have a decree of divorce given against a man on the ground of adultery without him ever appearing at all. It is possible, in certain cases, with leave of the court, for a decree of divorce to be given against a man without having the divorce petition physically served on him. To suggest that a court which relies—and I am not complaining—on that type of procedure should have its decisions held to be binding and irrefutable in this quasi-criminal matter, seems to me to amount to an abuse of the rules and standards of that court when they are applied for this particular purpose.
Anybody who has had experience of courts of this sort, as I once had in a professional capacity, knows that undefended divorce petitions go through at a considerable rate. A certain learned judge on Assizes tried 33 undefended divorce petitions in the course of one hour. Obviously, a jurisdiction of that sort should not be invoked for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman says it would be dangerous to permit a doctor to call evidence, in those circumstances, to prove he had not committed adultery. I do not see how danger arises. As my hon. Friend has said, it has been the law for seven years and so far as I know no difficulty has arisen. What is the reason for this change? Why change a position when it seems not only satisfactory but really consistent with elementary justice?
A doctor against whom a divorce petition has been granted will have to face that fact. It will be treated as prima facia evidence, and no doubt it will be difficult for him to bring evidence to refute the presumption raised; but surely he should have the opportunity of putting it forward. He should not be barred from calling any evidence in a matter which may affect vitally his whole professional career merely because years previously, for totally different reasons, he did not defend, or did not defend very strenuously, proceedings in the Divorce Division. It seems that the present subsection amounts to a denial of elementary justice to the doctor concerned.

Mr. Bevan: A gross exaggeration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says, "A gross exaggeration." Does he really suggest that there is any justice in ruining a man professionally because for purely domestic reasons—

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is forgetting the facts in this case. I am advised by my legal advisers that he is quite wrong in his statement that proceedings are different. I am informed that the courts have said again and again that the onus of proof of adultery is the same as for a criminal offence. I am bound to inform hon. Members that the legal advice at the disposal of the Government is at least as good as the opinion of the lawyers opposite.
However, the point which is being taken largely by the Opposition, is a perfectly valid one. It is that in many cases divorces are given in undefended actions, and therefore, the person concerned should have an opportunity, when the case comes before the General Medical Council, of asking that those circumstances should be reviewed. I should have said that in an undefended case the General Medical Council would address its mind to the fact that this was undefended, but it is not assumed at all that because a person has been found guilty of having been divorced the General Medical Council automatically proceeds to take his name off the register. The Council will take into account that he has been divorced and the surrounding circumstances. What is now being asked, and here is the danger, is that for the purposes of the General Medical Council the doctor shall be allowed to use evidence he suppressed in the courts.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has uttered a much more dangerous thing than has been said from this side of the House. What he has just said is that the General Medical Council would take into account that adultery was established in an undefended divorce case but without going into the evidence they would doubt the decision of the court.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Either what the right hon. Gentleman said meant that or it means nothing.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to know that he means something when he speaks, although it is not always what he says. The right hon. Gentleman says that the General Medical Council would take into account the fact that divorce proceedings were undefended. If that means anything it must mean they are, therefore, not going to take it for granted that the findings of the court were accurate in the matter. If they are not to do that then the fact that the proceedings were undefended is manifestly irrelevant. Is it not better for them to do it after hearing the evidence?
The advice that the legal officers to the Government gave is perfectly sound, but, if I may say with respect, it was perfectly irrelevant. We are not concerned with the onus of proof. If adultery is alleged it has to be proved. The onus is on the petitioner. The difference comes in the rules of evidence, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he has studied that subject at all, must know perfectly well that adultery is inferred by the Divorce Division on evidence, which though perfectly satisfactory, would not support a criminal charge. In the nature of things adultery is not, in general, committed before a crowd of witnesses. Adultery often inferred from a whole variety of suspicious circumstances from evidence of affection, intimacy, and so on, on which it is obvious that no criminal court could find him guilty.
I say that the right hon. Gentleman's legal advice is perfectly correct, but quite irrelevant and it remains a fact that the Divorce Division finds adultery on less evidence than would be necessary to sustain a criminal charge. As the right hon. Gentleman is building up his argument for this Clause on the fallacious basis that the evidence must be the same, and now it must be clear to him that the evidence is not the same, I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision, which apparently has been genuinely reached but on quite a false premise.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I intervene with the greatest diffidence in this argument about highly technical- legal points on which, I must say, I am totally unable to come to any conclusion at all. I am looking

on this as a layman and, to some extent, as one possessed of medical qualifications. It seems to me that the difficulty arises from the fact that we are discussing two separate jurisdictions with two separate penalties. It is perfectly true that divorce does not carry with it a penalty. Therefore, for many reasons the action in a divorce case is often more or less undefended or in some cases entirely undefended, but something which is liable to strike a man off the medical register has very grave consequences and a man will regard it with the utmost seriousness.
It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the spot when he said that the General Medical Council are free to take cognisance of this or not, and if we could come back to that point we might be able to reach a conclusion. Frankly, I see no possibility of a conclusion if we are to discuss in great detail tonight the rules of evidence and procedures of courts in this country. We are dealing with a relatively limited point—that of a medical man who is on the register and who may be removed from the register. The difficulty here arises from the words of the Clause:
…. that he has been guilty of adultery with a particular person ….
I think it is felt that a stigma arises out of those words.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, is it really necessary to insert this Clause here? After this somewhat lengthy discussion, would it not be possible at any rate for him to give the matter further consideration? The Clause has been inserted for the purpose of clarifying the law, and it is true that it may have the effect of clarifying the law: but it appears from the discussion we have had this evening that it might also have the effect of obscuring the law. I advance this with the utmost respect. not merely to the right hon. Gentleman but to those of my hon. Friends learned in the law who know far more about the legal side of this than I do.
I intervene, as I said, merely as a layman, but as a layman who possesses the particular qualifications which might bring him, so to speak, within the mischief of the Clause. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the


discussion we have had this evening does not show that there is a danger of obscuring the issue.

Mr. Bevan: As far as I am concerned the issue is perfectly clear. There is a variety of causes for which a person can be divorced. In some instances the proceedings in the courts can be so salacious as not to need any further inquiry. In some instances they may be so perfunctory that the General Medical Council would take all the surrounding circumstances into account.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was entirely wrong when he said that the answer must be either "Yes" or "No"; if that were so, they would not have to bother about whether any further evidence was required. They have still to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the doctor's name should be erased from the register—and the circumstances of the case would, I should have imagined, be the circumstances in which the divorce has taken place.

11.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Committee is nearer general agreement than would appear from the discussion. What we are discussing is the cognisance that another court can take of the finding, not of a superior or an inferior court but of another court, in judging another set of circumstances. The two are not ranged in hierarchical order, but in a kind of penumbra impinging upon each other. I make no apology for using such language in the presence of the Minister, whose language is more clear to members of the general public than some of the more vigorous adjectives in which he sometimes indulges. I prefer him in his more reflective mood, and I am trying to approach him on that plane.
We are considering the impinging of two parallel sets of jurisdiction upon each other, and I only say that we are agreed that the General Medical Council is not necessarily bound to pay attention to anything that takes place in the other court. That is the first point. The General Medical Council is a court on its own, not necessarily taking cognisance of anything that happens in the other court,

and we are now on the relatively narrow point as to whether something that has been proved in another court is to be taken as affecting something that has to be proved. We have argued for some time on this issue, and we might argue for some time longer on it.
It appears we are trying to remove an anomaly, but sometimes it is dangerous to try to remove an anomaly. From our discussions tonight, it would seem it is better to leave the anomaly and let the two bodies seek it out between them. This Committee should not try to remove an anomaly, which, apparently, has had the effect of involving us in a discussion upon what particular rules of evidence we are to apply in British courts in cases of divorce. That seems to me to be very far from the subject which we should be discussing tonight. I fear if we did review and possibly reform the British practice in all these matters, we might not get this Bill tonight, or, indeed, any Bill on this subject for a very long time.
I suggest that the Minister undertakes to look at this between now and the Report stage. I should prefer that he would accept our Amendment and leave out this subsection. Perhaps the Minister would prefer to use his discretion and put something down on Report to cover the point, when he will have to face the concentrated battery of my hon. and learned Friends here, who, from what I can gather as to their attitude, are not at all satisfied with the position in which the discussion is. If he can find it in his power, however, I hope he will accept the modest Amendment which I have brought forward.
This is not a party matter, because powerful arguments on the subject have been adduced from his own side of the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman can undertake to drop subsection (2) and if he thinks it necessary to insert something on the Report stage, then I am sure we can make progress tonight with the Bill. All of us desire to see it upon the Statute Book, but, unfortunately, it has run upon a series of rocks, and if we cannot get it refloated quickly, it will have its bottom torn out by those rocks.

Mr. Bevan: I have listened carefully to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said to see if some compromise might be reached, but the only com-


promise which he suggested is that I should award the victory to the critics, and that I should withdraw the subsection.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Reserving the right to re-try the case, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is an important case.

Mr. Bevan: I happen to believe that the weight of argument lies with me, and not with the Opposition. Just because hon. Members have made a large number of speeches, that does not mean they have added weight to the argument. They have added to its length, but not to its weight. What they are really suggesting is that a doctor who has secured a divorce and got rid of his wife, shall, for the purposes of the General Medical Council and the register, prove that he was not guilty of the conduct which enabled him to get rid of his wife. That is not good enough. We must rest on this, and if hon. Members get stubborn, I can get very stubborn as well.
We must rest on the fact that it is the General Medical Council itself which, when it considers the evidence, addresses itself to the question not merely whether the person has been guilty of adultery, but to whether the circumstances surrounding the whole case—[An HON. MEMBER: "But there is no evidence."] Hon. Members are still not answering my difficulty. That is, can the General Medical Council decide that, for the purpose of leaving a doctor on the register, he has not committed adultery where, for the purpose of divorce, a court has decided that he has committed adultery? That is a conundrum to which no hon. Member has addressed himself.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I fear that there is a danger of what one might call a prolonged debate arising. I trust that that will not take place. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if hon. Members choose to be stubborn, he can be stubborn, too. None of us desires that. We concede that point to him with the utmost grace. We will give him anything further which he chooses. He can be more eloquent than any hon. Member of this Committee. He can, if I may say so, use a stronger vein of invective than any other hon. Member. But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing subsection (2) of Clause 17.
It will be conceded on all sides of the Committee that the General Medical Council could not ignore the fact that a medical man had been pronounced by a court to be guilty of adultery. The General Medical Council could not say that he had not been guilty of it. No one is contesting that on this side of the Committee. Nor would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Council was automatically bound to treat the doctor as a guilty party worthy of being struck off the register.
We are not really far apart from each other. I do not think it should be impossible to find some accommodation between us. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to laugh. I do not know whether they have listened to the whole of the Debate tonight, or whether they listened to the Debate on Friday. But, honestly, I see the Committee in danger of getting bogged down on points which are not of first importance, and thereby jeopardising a Measure which all of us agree is a useful and important one, and which we all desire to see placed upon the Statute Book.
Our interests on this side of the Committee are quite as great as those of the Minister in trying to find whether we cannot reach some accommodation in the matter. The Minister said that the only accommodation suggested was that the palm should be awarded to his opponents. He claimed that he was the more worthy of it. We all think that, but could not each side go a little way further to meet the other? I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should look into this between now and the remaining stages of the Bill in order that he may deal with the points raised by my hon. Friends, and, also, from some of his own hon. Friends. They and we fear that a right which the subject previously enjoyed is being withdrawn by subsection (2), and it is that which we want to avoid.

Mr. Bevan: I am quite prepared to look at the matter again. Right hon. and hon. Members know very well that, when a Minister says, during a Committee stage of a Bill, that he will "look into it," he means that something will be done. But, in this case, if I say that I will look at the matter, it must not be inferred that the language of the subsection can be altered; because what we


do not want to happen is that the General Medical Council should re-try a case which has already been tried in the ordinary way in the courts.
However if a form of words can be imported into the subsection by which the atmosphere of finality can be removed from it, then something may be possible. At the moment we say that it shall be taken as evidence of adultery; that is why the divorce is given in the first place. I am informed that, in undefended cases, the courts decide that adultery has taken place, and the divorce is given, and the language in the subsection is as simple as it can be; it alights on the pivot of fact.
What the Opposition is asking is that it shall be open to the Council to reexamine—although the doctor has secured his redress from the courts, and has secured justice from the courts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, we are really getting somewhere now. The Opposition appears prepared to cast doubt on the whole British system of jurisprudence. When hon. Members say that we want to make progress, I certainly agree with them, but, I am not prepared to make progress at the expense of mutilating the Bill, and giving rise to all kinds of subsequent difficulties.
This Committee, if it cannot agree, has a way of solving its difficulty, and that is by the arbitrament of hon. Members themselves; there are such things as Division Lobbies. I have said that I am prepared to have a look at this, but with no guarantee that any tangible alteration can be made. I will most earnestly see whether there is any alteration in words which will not make it possible for the General Medical Council to re-try cases. That is quite simple, and it is as far as I can go.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I must say that the Minister appears to be struggling with his naturally combative nature; he has genuinely tried to move towards us, and if he will undertake to have conversations with my hon. Friends—[Interruption]—yes, that is the understood thing. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are making some noise, but I am not asking the Minister to commit himself further than he says; namely, that he will look into this matter in order to meet part of the

proposition which we have been putting to him tonight.
11.45 p.m.
I will only say that it is very much simpler if we can explore the possibility of approach, so to speak, behind the Speaker's Chair than across the Floor of the House. Conversations can take place much more speedily and we can get to each other's point of view much more quickly along that line. I am sure the Minister will be only too willing to undertake not merely that he will try but that he will consult with myself and some of my hon. Friends as to the words which he was trying to work out and as to the point he was trying to meet. I am sure that is not asking too much. The right hon. Gentleman makes an affirmative gesture. If he were willing to indicate that that was his view, I am sure we should be willing to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding of that further examination to which he has given, at any rate, a gesture of assent.

Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it is not possible for a Minister to say that between now and Report stage he will consult as suggested. He can consult with his advisers and, in turn, may take advice from any quarter which is desirable. I have said specifically—and I hope I shall not be accused on the Report stage of misleading the Committee—that I cannot agree to any Amendment of this subsection which will enable the General Medical Council to re-try a case tried by another court. I have said that it may be possible to import language into it which makes it sound less austere than it is at present. I hope that with that assurance we can proceed.

Mr. Linstead: Perhaps you will allow me, Sir Charles, to put one point which is completely new, because there may be no other opportunity of putting it. Why, of the various cases that may be tried in the courts, is adultery to be selected as the one where the finding of fact is final? There may, for example, be other civil cases, such as negligence, where exactly the same situation may arise and I would like the Minister, in looking at the question of adultery, to consider whether there may not be other circumstances where the same situation could be met.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think that the Minister, quite rightly, has hedged about his acceptance with a number of conditions which we take note of on this side of the Committee. But I think he has shown he is at any rate genuinely anxious that some accommodation should be reached if possible. The right hon. Gentleman has said so; there are two sides of the Committee concerned in this. I am about to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I must be sure that I am carrying my hon. Friends with me on this side of the Committee and those on the other side who have advanced arguments. Therefore, I am trying to examine the position as it stands. On the position as left by the Minister, I should be willing to withdraw the Amendment: I think that would meet with the acceptance of my hon. Friends on this side. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OFF REGISTER.)

Mr. Fort: I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, to leave out "twenty-eight days," and to insert three months.'
I have moved this Amendment in order to increase the length of time in which a doctor has the right to lodge his appeal to the Privy Council. The reason we do so is two-fold: first, that 28 days, in fact, come down to rather under three weeks' working time by the time the week-ends have been taken into account. The second reason is that in similar provisions there is a three-month period allowed. We find in practice that it is a reasonable length of time for a man to collect his evidence and put it into correct legal form in order to present his case properly before the relevant court.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope it will not be pressed. The assumption here is that a doctor whom the General Medical Council has decided is unfit to hold his practice, shall be allowed to go on practising for three months. That is the effect of the Amendment. We think 28 days is quite sufficient, and I should have

thought that would have been generally agreed. In some cases it would not be the case that he was unfit to practise because he had appealed to the Privy Council against sentence. It might not be erasure from the register, it could be other things as well. In such a case it would not be particularly serious, but the effect of the Amendment would be to allow a man to practise for three months when the gravest doubts might have been cast on his professional capacity to do so.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: An appeal to the Privy Council would be a very expensive business for the person concerned. It is something of a novelty—although I do not wish to raise that point—to have a direct appeal to the Privy Council; but there are precedents. It may well be that the Privy Council is the best body to which to appeal. But so far as this Amendment is concerned, such an appeal would be very expensive. The doctor affected would have to consider whether he was prepared to put his hand in his pocket to the tune of several hundreds of pounds, and possibly more if the case was a difficult one. I think it only fair that where he i., faced with the risk of being struck off the register he should have ample time to consider his position.

Mr. Bevan: But what about his patients? Does the hon. Member not bother about them at all?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It may well be that the appropriate action to take would be that he should not be allowed to practise during the period when he has been ordered to be struck off the register until he has decided whether he will appeal. It may well be that some compromise of that sort would he suitable.

Mr. Bevan: The appeal may not only be against erasure from the register.

Dr. Hill: For what would an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council be, other than against erasure from the register?

Mr. Bevan: Sentence, and other forms of penalties.

Dr. Hill: What other forms of penalty are provided for in the Bill?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If it is an appeal against not being allowed to practise the point is exactly the same. If he had been


found guilty and been ordered to be struck off the register or suspended immediately after the order he should be in a state of suspense. But I do not think it altogether fair that a man who is about to lose his means of livelihood should have to make up his mind whether or not he is to risk what may be a large proportion of his savings in an attempt to clear himself in a matter of what may very well be in effect, a few days. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point again.

Mr. Bevan: We have put 28 days in the Bill. The Medical Defence Association and the British Medical Association suggested 21 days.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: They may be wrong.

Mr. Bevan: I dare say, but we have added seven more days, and I should have thought that in those circumstances we ought to stick by the 28 days, and consider for a change—it appears almost unusual—the protection of the British public.

Mr. Fort: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the British public, in these cases, have in their own hands a protection which they could certainly exercise by withdrawing themselves from a doctor who was in this difficulty?

Question put, and negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(RESTORATION OF NAMES TO MEDICAL REGISTER.)

Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 12, line 20, after "application," to insert:
which must be submitted either in writing or by personal declaration.
This Amendment is merely an attempt to secure, in applying for restoration after an erasure, the right to apply personally as well as by the printed application.

Mr. Bevan: As I understand this matter, it is already adequately dealt with by Clause 24, which empowers the Committee to make rules which, among other things, will give to the applicants the right to appear personally before the Committee.

Dr. Stross: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21.—(APPOINTMENT OF VISITORS OF MEDICAL SCHOOLS.)

Mr. Pitman: I beg to move, in page 13, line 40, at the end, to add:
Provided that the foregoing subsections shall not apply to any place of instruction under the direction of any body which at any time during the preceding six years has been in receipt of a grant from public funds through the University Grants Committee.
This is primarily a university point, secondly a General Medical Council point, but all the way through a point concerning the general public. The general public is vitally interested in the efficiency of training which leads up to qualification. The whole Clause, I understand, arose from the Report of the Goodenough Committee, but I believe that since the report the conditions which that Committee had in mind, and against which its particular recommendation, and this particular Clause was directed, have ceased to be operative. I believe there were certain external degrees awarded by certain universities which were of doubtful qualification value, and the Goodenough Committee and the Minister thought it was desirable to meet those cases by this particular treatment, but I understand that that difficulty has been got over at the University level.
In any case, whether that is the case or not, it is well to consider this Clause and to fight it on the more difficult grounds, namely, that I think it is unwise in any event, and also unnecesary. I believe that the Minister ought to realise that this is wrong in general principle, and unwise because it divides responsibility between the universities and the General Medical Council. At best it blears it, and I maintain that it wholly divides the responsibility of training between the two bodies to the great detriment of both. The Clause says that these visitors should concern themselves with
… the sufficiency of the instruction given in the places which they visit and as to any other matters relating to such instruction ….
12 m.
The Clause is drawn in the very widest terms of reference, and I suggest that these visitors will be inspectors. They will be inspecting the qualifications and


ability of the staff to teach, the curriculum and hours of teaching and even particular methods in which instruction is given. I think there is an organisational difference between inspection and visiting. By my definition visiting is when the chancellor and governing body invite somebody in to make a report to them. Inspection is when some other body—the General Medical Council or the Privy Council—send somebody to make a report to them, with, admittedly, a copy sent to the chancellor and university governing body concerned.
In this Clause it is clearly an inspection which is taking place, because they are not invited in; they are sent in and make a report to the body sending them, and merely send a copy to the teaching body. We have cut right across the whole principle of the unity of responsibility for the job in hand. Day by day management is under inspection and the responsibility for it, therefore, is shared by the teaching university and by the General Medical Council which does the inspecting.
Let us suppose that university X is doing a bad teaching job in the opinion of the General Medical Council. Remember that university X must have already been recognised, because this does not apply to any new universities, which have to obtain recognition. I think the Minister will agree that the General Medical Council have complete powers of moving in and seeing everything by which they can recognise a new university. Therefore, it must be an existing university already recognised as able to give qualifications.
Already, the Council have power to call for the prescribed courses and in point of practice, since every medical school publishes its own calendar, they have access to the names and qualifications of the teaching staff. They also have the right under previous Acts to visit and supervise examinations to see how the university is conducting its examinations. Finally, through the hospitals' intern year, they have indirectly a new and much more effective method of up-to-the-year judgment the products of a university. Obviously, the General Medical Council will be able to find out from what university intern failures are coming. They are in a position all the way along of

judging the quality of university teaching by the products which come from it.
What is the Council's remedy, if they think a university is not teaching properly? They have three remedies at present, and I will deal with them in their order of severity. The most severe remedy is to withdraw recognition of their qualification. Then they can make representations to the University Grants Committee. That is a most effective form of pressure to bring to bear against a teaching university because it puts them on the spot at once. The power of the purse gives a great urge to the need to give very careful consideration to any criticisms which have been made.
Finally, they have the opportunity to make representations direct to the medical school or to the university, which is the ordinary and normal way of doing things in the first instance in this country. The first remedy is to make representations, the next to bring pressure through the University Grants Committee, and the final remedy, and the most severe, is to cut off recognition altogether. I would say that, in general, it is always very much better for any organisation judging the product to be in the position to take all these steps rather than to judge the methods of manufacture by which the product has been achieved.
I want to make it clear that unless the Clause is amended in both of the ways suggested in my Amendments, it will be inevitable for the General Medical Council to assume responsibility for who ought to be the dean of that medical faculty. The position will be that the university will have to say, "If you do not like our dean I suppose we shall have to give way; you are putting in this report and you are taking responsibility for appointments to even the highest posts. Whom do you want us to appoint instead? You will also be responsible, as the General Medical Council, for the views and opinions taught in the course of the three years, or whatever it is, of training. You will also be responsible for the methods of instruction."
I maintain that for the chancellor and senate, or the chancellor and governing body, it is a most dangerous precedent that the employing body. the qualifying professional body, should take responsibility for the day-to-day management of the courses of instruction. Are we to


have the electrical and mechanical engineers going into the Cambridge engineering faculty and asking questions about the personnel and inspecting in this way—asking about the curriculum, the hours of work and the methods of instruction? Are the chartered accountants to go into the London School of Economics in this way? Is the Law Society to go into Oxford University's Law School in the same way? Where is the principle to end?
Do the General Medical Council really want to take responsibility in this way? Are they not in a far stronger position if they can say, "You run your own show and we will judge you by the results you turn out"? is it not better for them to say that they want no responsibility for saying that this man is a good teacher and this man is a bad teacher? They would have the power to say, "This school is doing so badly that we have to take one of the three more or less severe sanctions which we can employ against them."
I know that the Privy Council is inserted as a saving clause, but it seems to me that it does not act as a saving clause in any way whatsoever. It merely puts an additional cogwheel into what is otherwise a most simple machine. I think the best method of all is the visiting committee which is invited into the university by the teaching university. That is dealt with by the second of the Amendments in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod).
Often our universities get visiting doctors from America and overseas, who are invited freely by the universities to make a report to the chancellor and the governing body of that university. If the General Medical Council wanted to see that report they could and would obviously be able to see it. Every university is proud and anxious to do its best to teach the doctors really well so that they can serve the public really well. We would get far further in this Committee if we used that tendency, rather than seeking to divide the responsibility for that job between the General Medical Council and the teaching universities concerned.

Mr. Bevan: I was rather surprised to see this Amendment on the Order Paper,

because, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) himself has pointed out, these words were put into the Bill following the recommendations of the Goodenough Committee. They also received, so far as my knowledge goes, when the previous proposals were being discussed, if not unanimous support from the university authorities, at least no objection from them.

Mr. Pitman: My information is that the universities are very disturbed.

Mr. Bevan: That is not my information at all. My information is that one university, where a new dean had been appointed, raised some objection, but his predecessor had not. His predecessor had been consulted in this matter, and the universities generally are happy about it. In any case, the Committee ought to be happy, inasmuch as it has been accepted now that it is not sufficient for the General Medical Council only to be able to inspect examination, because of the matters and the sort of instruction which is being given throughout the whole of the period. It has been thought wise, therefore, that the General Medical Council should be able to inspect.
It was felt—and this is the point made by the hon. Member—that there would be some clash between the university authorities on the one side and the General Medical Council on the other. That is why the authority of the Privy Council has been invoked. The Privy Council
can give directions. If the General Medical Council inspections are vexatious to the university authorities, they can make representations to the Privy Council to alter the directions. I should have thought, therefore, that the university authorities are properly safeguarded, and I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. We all know that these corporate bodies are exceeding jealous of their powers and their prerogatives.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: And rightly so.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, and rightly so; they and the General Medical Council, too, are anxious that they should not have their toes trodden upon. It has been considered that the General Medical Council is interested in this matter. and in order to see that the interests of the Council and the university authorities do not clash


it is provided that the Privy Council can be brought in. I should have thought in the circumstances that that was enough. I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I dare say this may be all right, but I do not think the case put to us is very convincing. Though I am extremely reluctant to stay out of bed any longer, really something more ought to be said on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman told us about the dean of one university. I do not know to which university he refers, nor, indeed, do I know which universities have deans.
I cannot pretend that I got myself so well advised about this as I should have thought it my duty to do in previous parliaments but certainly, the impression which I have been given, if the right hon. Gentleman can bear to listen to a sentance or two, is that the universities are more than dubious about this. If really his case is to rest, as he seemed to rest it, almost wholly upon the contrary assertion, I think that he owes it to himself, and to the Committee, to make some further inquiry; because I do not believe that it should be taken simply as it has been stated this evening.
If I may say a word about the more general side, I would say that these corporations are not, or I hope that they are not, exceedingly jealous about their powers and privileges. They are no doubt jealous of them, but we here ought to be extremely slow to take them away. There could be a very high degree of independence in the great teaching organs in the old days because they had a high degree of financial independence. It would be out of order, and it is not necessary to my argument, to consider whether the development of the last 50 years, which has caused these corporations to lose their financial independence, is a good thing or a bad thing; but the fact is that that has happened. If it is not desired to give the impression that in the future universities are going to have no sort of genuine independence we ought to be very slow to give new powers to a central organ to inspect teaching.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question which is of a very small

kind but which, I think, ought to be understood. It is about "a visitor" as mentioned in subsection (3). It is not clear whether the words "a visitor" mean an individual, or whether "a visitor" means one of those visitatorial committees indicated in a previous subsection. I think it obviously ought to mean the same as it meant in the previous subsection, and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman meant it to mean the visitatorial committee, or whatever it may be called. I think we ought to be certain that the effect of the words would be that, and that they would not mean an individual.
Secondly, to repeat, I should like the Committee to consider whether it ought not to fall over a little backwards in trying to preserve what is left of the independence of the great teaching corporations, in the main universities. I think the Committee ought to consider that, before it gives way on this matter; and more especially before it gives way to this upon the right hon. Gentleman's mere indication that all the universities are perfectly happy except one un-named university, where some dean has been succeeded by some other dean. I do not believe that it is by any intention to be uncandid if the right hon. Gentleman is at all misleading the Committee. But as far as I know, it is not the case that all the universities, except one, are happy about this Clause.

Mr. Bevan: I shall be really happy to be quite candid. This Bill has been gestated for a long time, and I should have thought that if the provisions in the Bill were obnoxious to the university authorities they would have made it clear long ago. I did not want to delay the Committee at this late hour, and that was why my remarks were brief. The Goodenough Committee reported on this matter years ago, and used clear language. They said:
We see a need for some central source from which medical schools can obtain advice and guidance. Regular inspection of medical schools should contribute to the maintenance of good standards of training and should prove helpful to the schools. We thought that the General Medical Council, being fully representative of the licensing bodies, and the medical profession, is the proper body to be entrusted with the conduct of these inspections.
This was the Goodenough Committee, and they reported long ago. It is important—and I do not try to say anything


else—that the universities must always be jealous of their independence. We are seeking to avoid confusion and to see to it that the new authority given to the General Medical Council should not be exercised in a vexatious manner to the universities: and then there is the part which the Privy Council can play. We hope that this will be, in practice, a harmonious way of proceeding. While the General Medical Council has a statutory responsibility to withdraw approval if a school fails to provide proper courses, it has no means, at the moment, of finding out what the courses are like.

Mr. Pickthorn: They have the results.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, they have the results, but that is not deemed to be sufficient and it was thought desirable that there should be these inspections which, we hope, will be joint inspections. With regard to the small point made by the hon. Gentleman, I think that the visits of which we are speaking are the authorised visits.

Mr. Pickthorn: Not an individual member, but the committee as such.

Mr. Bevan: Unless the "visitor" is a visitor in furtherance of an instruction given him by the committee. That may happen.

Mr. Pitman: There is one point and one question which I should like to put and to ask. First, when the Goodenough Committee made their report—that part which the right hon. Gentleman has read to us—were there not external or extramural courses against which that recommendation was directed, but which have now ceased? Secondly, is it not true that so far as his statement, that the universities are happy about it, is concerned, certain evidence can be produced? I will be pleased if he will look into fresh evidence, which, I think, I can collect, supporting the view that there is considerable disturbance at this particular time.
Then there is this specific point that the Privy Council is there to act as "smoother-out" of the difficulties between the universities and others. If I may say so, I think that that concession is just a piece of window-dressing. The

right hon. Gentleman is dividing the responsibility for teaching between the chancellor and the governing bodies which are ordinarily responsible for day to day management, and the Council, which will negative day to day matters.

Mr. Bevan: We had optimistically hoped that we might settle this remaining part of the Committee stage in an hour; but we have gone far beyond that already. However, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point is that the Privy Council has very specific powers. This is not merely window-dressing. They can say how inspections shall take place. So far as the point about the Goodenough Committee is concerned, the language I have read out is far too wide to apply only to extra-mural teaching. I certainly would inquire between now and the Report stage if the universities are unhappy about it, but I cannot promise now that any substantial alterations can be made to the Clause.

Mr. Pitman: In view of the assurance by the Minister that he would look into the evidence on this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23.—(REGISTRATION FEES.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 2, leave out "or," and insert:
and, as from the date of the first determination of the Council under this subsection, the amount of any fee payable."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made: In page 18, leave out lines 32 to 34.

In line 34, at end insert:
() In this Act references to Wales shall be construed as including, and references to England shall be construed as not including, the county of Monmouth.—[Mr. Bevan.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO REGISTRAR AND REGISTRATION.)

(1) References in section twenty-nine of the Medical Act, 1858, and sections eighteen to twenty of this Act to the registrar shall be construed as references to the registrar of the Council, and references therein to the register shall be construed as references to the general register.

(2) Where, in the case of a person registered or provisionally registered in the local register for Scotland or Ireland, the registrar of the Council makes any note in the general register or erases his name from or restores his name to the general register, the registrar shall forthwith send to the registrar of the Branch Council for Scotland or Ireland, as the case may be, particulars of the note, erasure or entry for that branch registrar to make forthwith in the local register such amendment as may be required to bring it into conformity with the general register.

(3) Where, in the case of a person registered or provisionally registered in the local register for England, the registrar of the Council makes a note in, erases his name from or restores his name to the general register, the registrar shall forthwith make in the local register for England such amendment as aforesaid.

(4) References in this Act to registration shall, except where the context otherwise requires, he construed as references to registration under the Medical Acts; and for the purpose of assimilating the wording of references in those Acts to registration, the enactments specified in the Schedule (Amendment of References to Registration) to this Act shall be amended in manner specified in the second column of that Schedule:

Provided that (without prejudice to the provisions of section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, which relates to the effect of repeals) nothing in that Schedule shall prejudice the effect of any registration made before the passing of this Act, or any right or liability arising (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by reason of any such registration.—[Mr. Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

New Schedule.—(AMENDMENT OF REFERENCES TO REGISTRATION.)

Amendment

In section fourteen, for the words "under this Act" there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts"; in section fifteen, after the words" to be registered "where they first occur there shall be inserted the words" under the Medical Acts," and for the words "under this Act" there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts"; in sections twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-five, for the words "under this Act" there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts"; in section twenty-seven for the words "according to the provisionP of this Act," in each place where they occur, and for the words" under the provisions of this Act "there shall he substituted the words" under the Medical Acts"; in

section thirty, thirty-two and thirty-four for the words "under this Act" there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts"; in section thirty-five for the words "under the provisions of this Act "there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts"; in sections thirty-six and thirty-seven for the words "under this Act" there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts."

In section one, for the words "under the provisions of the said first-recited Act," there shall he substituted the words "under the Medical Act."

In section eleven, for the words from "registered," to "medical register," there shall be substituted the words "registered under the Medical Acts as a Commonwealth practitioner"; in section twelve, for the words from "registered," to "medical register," there shall be substituted the words "registered under the Medical Acts as a foreign practitioner"; for section fourteen, there shall be substituted—
14.—(1) Persons registered by virtue of this Part of this Act shall be registered in the general register, and that register shall contain a separate list of the names and addresses of the Commonwealth practitioners, and also a separate list of the names and addresses of the foreign practitioners, registered by virtue of this Part of this Act.
(2) Each of the said lists shall be made out alphabetically according to the surnames";

In section fifteen, the word "medical," where it last occurs, is hereby repealed;

In section twenty-one, the word "medical," where it last occurs, and the word "said" are hereby repealed.

In section one, in subsection (1) for the words "in the medical register under this section" there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts by virtue of this section," in subsection (2) for the words "in the medical register" there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts," in subsection (3) after the words "shall be" there shall be inserted the words "in the general register, and shall be," and subsection (4) is hereby repealed; in subsection (6) of section two, in section five, in section six and in subsection (1) of section seven for the words "under section one of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "by virtue of section one of this Act," and in section six for the words "under section eleven" there shall be substituted the words "by virtue of section eleven"; in section eight, in subsection (1) for the words "in the medical register" in each place in which they occur there shall be substituted the words "under the Medical Acts," and for the words "under this section" there shall be substituted the words by virtue of this section," in subsections (2), (3) and (4) for the word "under" in each place in which it occurs there shall be substituted the words "by virtue of," in subsection (4) after the words "shall be" there shall he inserted the words "in the general register, and shall be," and in subsection (5) for the words from the beginning to "in relation" there shall be substituted the words "Registration by virtue of


this section shall have effect," and for the word "under" there shall be substituted the words "by virtue of."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

As amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

CIVIL DEFENCE

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (Police) (Training) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. de Freitas.]

Resolved:
That the Draft Civil Defence (Police Training) (Scotland) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Miss Herbison.]

NEWSPRINT SUPPLIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kenneth Robinson.]

12.31 a.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: I consider myself fortunate to have the opportunity of debating the short supply of newsprint at this present time just after the newspapers have been reduced in size. British newspapers at the present time are the only section of the Press which is controlled by the Government. My information is that the British newspapers are smaller than in any other country in the free world. At the same time the magazines and periodicals are free to print as much as they like, including the "Soviet Daily News."
I have no quarrel with the magazines or periodicals which play their part in the social life of the country, having the newsprint they require; but it does not seem proper that a paper like the "Soviet Daily News" should be free to print just what it pleases and have as much paper as it requires. I believe that the freedom of the Press is impaired owing to the shortage of newsprint, and the situation is likely to worsen in the future. For a few months earlier in the year, round about the time of the General Election, the papers published an average of seven pages a day, and that continued for a time. But since 2nd July newspapers

have been forced to reduce their size to six pages daily.
The provincial daily papers, which have the responsibility of printing not only local news, but national news, have also had to cut down; and the provincial weekly papers have been cut pro rata. It seems quite a wrong time for newspapers to have to cut down their space. I am told that the stocks of newsprint are so low and future supplies so uncertain that newspapers may even have another cut in the near future, which might possibly bring them down to four pages a day. What a thought, that in 1951, with the Festival of Britain coming along, this country may have four-page daily newspapers!
I understand that it was agreed between the Government and the newspapers that the stocks of newsprint should not fall below 100,000 tons, which was considered a safety line to maintain a regular Press. On 1st July this year the stocks of newsprint for newspapers had fallen to 91,500 tons. For the next six months the total foreseeable supplies from the home mills are 171,000 tons and imports 77,000 tons, making a total of 248,000 tons. On the basis of a six-page paper, the newspapers consume something like 10,500 tons weekly, which means that supplies fall short of consumption by 25,000 tons for the half year. This has to be made good from the national stocks reducing it to something like 66,000 tons, which is only a six-week supply.
This figure allows for no hazards of any kind. We all know that we are living in very difficult times. Difficulties may take place with regard to shipping and so on, and I should have thought we ought to have adequate supplies of newsprint to ensure that our daily Press carries out its proper function. Furthermore, the people should be informed of what is going on throughout the world as well as at home. I am told, and I have no quarrel with the football pools, that in August they are to receive another 10 square inches of space. Perhaps it is to enable the investors to see more clearly what they are doing, and to save something on the ophthalmic services of the National Health Service.

Mr. Nally: What space does the Press give to the football pools?

Air Commodore Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman will stand up and ask his


question in a proper manner I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Nally: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me, if he takes the eight months ended in March, what proportion of the newsprint of Sunday newspapers was devoted to permutations and tips on the football pools?

Air Commodore Harvey: I do not display the same interest as the hon. Gentleman does in football pools. I am only pointing out that at a time when the country is desperately short of newsprint that additional paper is to be given to the football pool firms.
The Government must carry full responsibility for the present situation because they have had full control over the raw material. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time to give the impression that this is run by the Newsprint Supply Company who have got themselves into this position. But nothing of the kind is correct. They have been carrying on, on their own behalf, dependent on Government licences and instructions to a very great extent.
Before the war something like one-third of our total supplies of newsprint came from Canada. This was also the case during the war when the supplies from Scandinavia were cut off. Without Canadian help the newspapers of Great Britain would not have been capable of carrying on at all. The 1950 imports from Canada, which have only recently been agreed, are set at 25,000 tons. The wartime minimum yearly was 67,000 tons. Until devaluation last September Canadian newsprint was cheaper than any other in the world. Today the right hon. Gentleman in answering a Question of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing)—which was on the tape machine this evening—inferred that the industry had only itself to blame.
Lord Layton went to Canada in 1946 to arrange supplies and contracts for 1949, 1950 and 1951 on a basis of 300,000 tons per annum. He carried with him a written assurance from the Government that licences would be provided. Unfortunately the Government broke their contracts, and in doing so they upset the whole of this great industry in Canada which happens to be second to agriculture. In 1945 Canada and Newfoundland shipped to the United

Kingdom 198,458 tons. In the autumn of 1945 the present Minister of Town and Country Planning announced that licences were available for only 93,000 tons. The Government went back on their contracts. The price of Canadian newsprint was £25 at ton against a British controlled price of £34 a ton. The Canadians made great sacrifices in this matter, and the British Government demanded cancellation of contracts.
Had coal been supplied to the Canadians as they wanted we should have had the newsprint. Coal could have been sent at a freight rate of 10s. a ton and newsprint could have been shipped back at an additional freight rate of 35s. a ton, but the Government broke its contracts. It seems to me that this Government completely lacks the ability to work out its priorities. The right hon. Gentleman will tell us, no doubt, that it is due to the shortage of dollars. We know we have been through a dollar crisis, but since the American loan has been forthcoming a lot of money has been spent in the United States on a lot of unnecessary items. I do not want to weary the House with figures, because they are all well known. If the hon. Member wants to interrupt I will give way.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport): I should like to invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to weary the House with one of the items on which we have spent dollars unnecessarily.

Air Commodore Harvey: Tinned oysters, chewing gum and marbles.

Mr. Michael Foot: Rubbish.

Air Commodore Harvey: It is not rubbish, it is well known. I will not waste any more time on that. The onus is on the Government to maintain these contracts and to make proper arrangements for newsprint to be imported from Canada.

Mr. Blackburn: Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, Northfield) rose—

Air Commodore Harvey: I cannot give way any more because of the time. The responsibility is on the Government to ensure that the country's supply of newsprint is maintained and that papers of sufficient size are made available. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give this matter full consideration and


assure the country that something is being done so that the position is not jeopardised.

12.42 a.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): In raising this question tonight, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned two or three points which I should like to dispose of before coming to the main points with which he has been dealing. He spoke of "Soviet News." May I inform him, as I am sure the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop), knows, that "Soviet News" is not printed on newsprint.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: On paper better than newsprint.

Mr. Wilson: It is not printed on any paper that the newspapers could use, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that. We have de-controlled the paper used for periodicals because they use very little newsprint. Therefore, the allocation of newsprint for "Soviet News" does not arise. Football pool forms are not printed on newsprint either. In spite of the increase to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, the amount of paper allocated to football pools at the present time is only 5.8 per cent. of pre-war usage.

Mr. Baxter: All this paper has to be pulped.

Mr. Wilson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with his very considerable knowledge of this subject, has made that intervention.
Finally, before coming to the main point, the hon. and gallant Gentleman produced what I thought was an irrelevant series of remarks in answer to the question by my hon. Friend about certain items imported under the token import scheme. I have never heard it seriously suggested that we should cut out imports under this scheme. Imports from the United States under this scheme account for an extremely small figure of dollars and it would not mean any serious contribution to the newsprint situation.
I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech, which in certain directions was restrained, did not follow some of the suggestions and more extravagant remarks

in certain sections of the Press during the last few days. We have been told all this nonsense about the Government wanting to censor or muzzle the Press. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not come forward with these remarks.
In view of the amount of newsprint which has been given, especially in one paper last Sunday, to what were deliberate and scandalous untruths about the Government, perhaps it is necessary that I should repeat what I said on 22nd May, when I said that I wanted to assure the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers) and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), both of whom are here to-night, that there is no question of discrimination against the Press. It is a question of direction in relation to the supply of newsprint available. I went on to say—and I think the House will agree that this has been my attitude—that we shall steadfastly resist any suggestion from whatever quarter it comes that newsprint supplies should be used in any way for censorship purposes.
I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks about the cancellation of the Canadian contracts some time ago. That matter has been frequently debated in this House and I do not intend to go over those Debates tonight. But I want to deal with the situation as it has developed during this year, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman did for the greater part of his speech. Before giving an account of what has happened this year, since the increase to seven pages just before the election, I should like to make one or two general points in explanation of the very serious position which has developed.
I want to assure the House most sincerely that the Government regret this decline in the newsprint position just as much as do the newspapers themselves. The change in the newsprint position since the beginning of this year is chiefly due to the increase in the consumption of newsprint by the United States newspapers. It is due principally to their heavy rate of buying, not only in Canada, but also in Scandinavia. Of course, when the American Press come with their considerable demand for newsprint from the soft currency countries, those countries, which are themselves dollar-hungry, naturally give priority to the American demand.
I think it is fair to say that it was not possible to foresee this development in the world newsprint situation. In the Estimates they made earlier this year, the newspapers were over-optimistic. In saying that, I imply no criticism of their over-optimism; indeed, as the House knows, the Government accepted the estimates that were made by the News-print Supply Company. Neither they—the Newsprint Supply Company—nor we—the Government—could be blamed for failing to foresee the very remarkable change in world supplies as a result of what is quite a small percentage change in consumption by the United States newspapers, and, in fact, as the House well knows, the total consumption of newsprint by the American Press is on such a huge scale that quite a small percentage change in it is bound to lead to quite serious effects in the supply of newsprint, particularly in the soft currency countries.
Again, may I say that there is no question of any desire on the part of the Government to hobble the Press in terms of newsprint supply through a refusal to allocate Canadian dollars when the allocation of Canadian dollars is possible against the background of our financial situation. Canadian dollars for newsprint had to be cut off last autumn at the time of the very serious economic position which the country was facing. At the same time there were very serious cuts in the allocation of dollars for Canadian timber, which all of us in all parts of the House regret. In the past few weeks we have been paying the price of the shortage resulting from that position. There were serious reductions in the volume of raw cotton for the Lancashire cotton industry, and I think anyone facing the position impartially would agree that it would have been difficult to have found dollars for the newsprint last year.
But as soon as the dollar position improved, and as soon as we were able to judge the situation in the light of the representations made by the Newsprint Supply Company, we allocated dollars for 25,000 tons of newsprint for the second half of this year. A few weeks later, when it became clear from our discussions with the Newsprint Supply Company that the 25,000 tons would not be forthcoming, or that it appeared likely that it would

not be forthcoming at least within the second half of this year, we agreed that some of it might be carried forward. Then, when we were pressed to agree to an allocation of dollars for the first half of 1951, dollars were quickly allocated for that purchase as well, to a total extent of 37,500 tons.
Only two or three weeks after the widespread newspaper campaign, particularly in the provincial Press, for a decision to allocate dollars for newsprint in the first half of 1951, the newspapers now say—and this was put to me by the Newsprint Supply Company, I think, for the first time last week—that they need an assurance about the dollar supply for newsprint for the second half of the calendar year 1951. I do not think anyone would disagree that each time we have looked at the newsprint situation this year it has got worse and further assurances have been required in order to ease it. Again, I am certainly not complaining about the estimates of the Newsprint Supply Company, because I do not see how they or ourselves or any other mortal citizen could have forecast the development which we have been facing.

Mr. Bishop: Let me point out that the contracts of the Newsprint Supply Company with the Canadian mills require that by 30th June of each year we should tell them the tonnage we intend to take for the whole of the forthcoming year. Therefore, by giving them only the figure for the first half of that year we are, in fact, in breach of our contract. That is the point.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will realise also that by the general arrangements for financial provision under the European Recovery Programme these things are programmed 12 months ahead in the year ending 30th June, and we all know of the difficulty because of the fact that these two years overlapped.
As I have said, the position was put to us quite fairly and clearly only last week with regard to the second half of 1951, and I can tell the House that I am considering that position with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present moment. May I say that the Government fully recognise the difficulty in conditions of world shortage that the Newsprint Supply Company were faced with in their buying and also the impossibility of meeting the


huge needs of British newspapers—and taking it in total it is a tremendous purchasing programme—on the basis of purchasing job lots. We recognise, too, the necessity for long-term arrangements for the supply of newsprint, and I have made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering the question of making these arrangements go as far ahead as possible.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The House hopes that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a state-men as a result of these negotiations between him and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In view of the exigencies of the time, I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that the Opposition attaches the greatest importance to this very serious position, and we shall expect either a statement or a discussion before the House rises next week.

Mr. Wilson: I have that point in mind, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government attach tremendous importance to this, too.
I should like to deal very briefly, because time is limited, with the events of this year, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. First, I want to make it clear that the reduction which occurred a few days ago merely means—and it is regrettable that it amounts to this—the withdrawal of the extra page originally given for the election period of three or four weeks. There are a number of points in the statement, which has been circulated by the Newsprint Supply Company, which I consider not to be fully accurate, but I will not take note of those at the moment.
The statement made the point about periodicals, as did the hon. and gallant Member in his speech. I express disagreement with the facts that they have given about the consumption for periodicals, which is some 23,000 tons less than the figure the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given. Periodicals use relatively little newsprint, and there was no reason to keep the control on them when they used so little newsprint. I want to make plain that newsprint is still restricted to periodicals. They can use other paper as much as they want, but if any further cut becomes necessary on the newspapers, then I shall make it my

business to see that there is a corresponding cut in the newsprint used by the magazines.

Mr. Blackburn: Why?

Mr. Wilson: I cannot give way, because there is not much time left.

Mr. Blackburn: But the public are entitled to know why.

Mr. Wilson: I have not the time to deal with that now.
Very briefly the position since the beginning of this year has been as follows. At the beginning of the year the newspapers were limited to six pages. The stocks of newsprint in the hands of the papers were considered to be higher than was needed, and then there came the extra page for the election period towards the end of March. The Government gave discretion to the Newsprint Rationing Committee, at their request, to settle the size of newspapers within certain broad limits, provided an agreed minimum stock was maintained; and provided also that there should be no dollars allocated for newsprint.
On the estimate which they made, and which we accepted, it seemed probable it would be possible to run seven-page newspapers to the end of June, though on one or two occasions I expressed my doubt about it and stressed that we should not have enough newsprint to maintain six-page newspapers in the second half of the year. In the circumstances, the Rationing Committee took its decision to allow seven-page newspapers to 1st July, although in making that decision it took into account that if its ships did not come home there would be no chance of seven-page papers in the second half of the year.

Mr. Blackburn: Why does the right hon. Gentleman worry one way or the other? Why does he worry whether it is six or seven pages?

Mr. Wilson: During the last three months it became clear that these estimates of imports from Europe were not going to be realised, and that the actual imports of newsprint were going to be less than had been anticipated by some 28,000 tons. We tried to ease this situation with two successive alllocations of dollars for newsprint from Canada.
The suggestion has also been made, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not make great play of it, that we ought to reduce our exports. We are considering, at present, what the volume of our exports should be for next year; but I hope that hon. Members will think twice before they press us to reduce the level of our exports. Those exports are going almost entirely, practically every ton of them, to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Baxter: Their newspapers are bigger than ours.

Mr. Wilson: I agree that their newspapers are bigger than ours; but the hon. Member for Southgate who has always stressed the need for the maximum of trade with Commonwealth countries, must think twice before he allows himself to be persuaded from that argument by other considerations. I must remind a number of hon. Members opposite, who on a number of occasions have chided the Government for the breach of the Canadian newsprint contracts in 1947, that when they suggest a reduction of newsprint exports at present, they are asking us to over-ride contracts already existing between British supplying mills and Australian and New Zealand newsprint companies.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are to be taken to ensure that newspapers do not have to reduce their sizes further?

Mr. Wilson: I will come to that point in a moment. At the time the Newsprint Supply Company came to the decision it did at the beginning of this year, in January, it knew that the level of exports for this year would be at least 95,000 tons. In fact it looks like being 100,000 tons

Mr. Blackburn: The Government's estimate proved to be wrong.

Mr. Wilson: We are considering the export position for next year, and also the allocations as between particular Commonwealth countries. I have said that we are considering the dollar supply position with regard to the second half of next year. Those, I think, are the main points which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
May I, in conclusion, refer to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, and also the hon. Member

for Southgate about the size of our newspapers? I myself, and I am sure the whole House, would like to see newspapers a good deal larger than they are. I am not going into the question of what we would like to see extra newsprint used for. We may have different ideas about that, and it is not a matter which comes into this question at all. The Government's policy is that they would like all the newsprint they can physically pay for to be made available, and how the newspapers use it is not for the Government or, indeed, for the Opposition to attempt to dictate.
It is the fact that the Australian newspapers are considerably larger than—something like three times as large as—our own; but I want to point out that that is not the only test of newsprint consumption. In terms of the number of copies per head, we lead the world. If one takes the estimated consumption of newsprint per head of population, out of 64 countries covered by a list published by the United Nations organisation, I think it will be found that the United Kingdom is eighth on that list, being exceeded only by the United States, Canada, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Switzerland.
As compared with pre-war days, there have been major changes in the dollar position due to the war. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us what items of dollar expenditure—which raw materials, which foodstuffs—can be cut in order to get more newsprint, we shall be glad of the advice which he can give us. I assure him we shall be very glad of it. Two of the important questions raised, as I have said, are being considered at the present time, although I can certainly give no assurance at all about the exports of newsprint from this country. So far as periodicals are concerned, I can say that if there is to be any further cut in newsprint allocated for newspapers, the periodicals will suffer also.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Tuesday evening, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute past One o'Clock.